Protecting Children in Conflict
Edward Leigh Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) for initiating this debate on protecting children in conflict. She was right to deal with the Palestinian situation, but I will not follow her example in any detail as I do not want to get involved in the debate about the rights and wrongs of the Palestinian issue, except for noting the suffering of both the Palestinian people and the Israeli people in a very difficult conflict.
I want to make some general remarks about how the British Government could try to improve the protection of children in conflict areas, particularly when it comes to education. Education is the subject on which I want to focus and I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with that problem when he replies.
I should perhaps declare a family interest. I am speaking today because both my elder daughters work for charities in Africa and have worked in Kenya, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic. They keep me informed of their work and what is going on and, a few years ago, I visited the Congo with War Child to look at the appalling privations that children faced, particularly because of the conflict and the use of child soldiers. My visit had a deep impact on me and I am sure that, even despite all the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Minister and other Ministers in the FCO and DFID, there is still more that we can do.
As I say, I want to concentrate on education, but why are children particularly vulnerable? It is an obvious point, but they are vulnerable because they are young. When a three-year-old loses their parents in a bomb attack, it is virtually impossible for them to survive alone. If a 25-year-old loses a parent, it is a tragedy, but they can survive. It is right that the House should focus particularly on the appalling impact of conflict on children, which is much greater than its impact on mature people.
Of course, children suffer appalling and severe trauma from witnessing events. They do not have the life experience or emotional maturity to integrate a particular scene into the rest of their life. We have been brought up in a very comfortable environment, but we all know how even quite small events from our childhood can have a traumatic effect later on. Imagine a child in a conflict situation witnessing their mother being raped or their brother being dragged off as a child soldier or witnessing murders or the appalling scenes that have happened in Syria. That trauma will live with those children for ever.
Children are targeted in conflict situations for sexual attacks. Girls and boys make up more than half the rape cases in such conflicts and that is an appalling statistic. Imagine the appalling emotional trauma of that. Children are also targeted by military groups that are keen to expand their ranks quickly and we have seen that in particular over the years in Congo. As I know from my visit to the Congo and as we all know, it is appalling to talk to former child soldiers who have been dragged into these events. They have committed terrible things and terrible things have happened to them, sometimes when they are just 13 or 14-years-old.
War destroys livelihoods, and children are often seen as a way for distressed families to get income. Girls can be married early for a price or used as sex workers and boys can be sent out to work in fields and factories or to collect rubbish from the streets. I occasionally visit the middle east, and we see the desperate struggle for survival, particularly for Syrian refugees in Lebanon or Jordan when there is no social security available to any significant extent. In conflict situations, families are desperate to survive, and we all know that children have to be used as part of that.
The point I want to stress and focus on for the rest of my speech is that it is children and not adults who lose their opportunity for education. Once that opportunity is lost, it is lost for ever and can never be repeated. Education is essential for children and particularly for children in conflict areas. It is a life chance that comes only once and a reasonable level of education is even more important for children who will be expected to build a peaceful recovery from conflict. Education keeps children safe. Obviously, if a child is in a school or in an educational environment, it is less likely that they will be married early, raped, abducted or recruited by armed groups. All that is much more unlikely when schools are open.
Actually, education is prioritised by families in conflict areas. We have seen on television, such as during the Iraq conflicts, and from our own experience how families that are often desperate and have nothing—owning nothing, surviving on nothing—still make the effort to dress their children in immaculate uniforms to walk through bombed-out streets to get school. Education is extraordinarily important for them.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a compelling case based on his experiences in Africa. It is deeply humbling when we go to developing countries in parts of Africa and elsewhere and see children who have walked miles and miles and miles to attend a classroom where they have no seats, but may have rocks to sit on, if they are lucky, and which have corrugated iron roofs. Their parents have made a contribution out of what limited resources they have, because they absolutely value education as the way out of poverty and conflict. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is deeply humbling for those of us here who take education for granted?
Sir Edward Leigh
My hon. Friend has made that point very movingly. We live in such a comfortable environment here where education is, frankly, of a fantastically high standard and is free—paid for by the taxpayer—that we simply do not appreciate the appalling sacrifices made in places where education is not free by parents who have nothing. They make that huge effort to try to educate their children, because they know, as we know, that education is everything.
We can establish a case that education is absolutely vital, therefore, in terms of taking children out of conflict situations and giving them life chances. So, having made that case, we would expect it to be prioritised by humanitarian agencies and Governments, but analysis of the 2013 United Nations appeal tracking data shows that only 1.9% of UN humanitarian appeal funds went to education. That seems to me to be very low, and I was surprised when I saw that. I cannot believe that the figure is so low, but that is what I have been told. Donors simply did not prioritise that part of the UN appeals.
Nicola Blackwood
Does my hon. Friend agree that one way we can encourage donor countries to prioritise education is by the post-2015 development framework including secondary, as well as primary, education as a core priority?
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a very good point and I hope the Minister has made a note of it, and perhaps will reply to it.
UN-funded education projects, largely delivered through non-governmental organisations, only reach 3.5 million of the children who were targeted for education in emergencies in 2013, and development donors do not get involved in education in emergencies even though they prioritise the education of children in other places. When a humanitarian agency arrives in an appalling situation where people are dying, starving and so forth, and it has to feed them and make sure they are sheltered, I can quite understand the mindset leading it not immediately to prioritise education. However, we must recognise—my daughter made this point to me—that these are often not the sorts of the intensely violent conflicts that we have witnessed in Europe and that last for three or four years; they are often low-level conflicts that can go on for many years and therefore children can be kept out of school for many years, because education is not seen as a priority.
Education falls between the two major funding streams, therefore, with the result that of the 58 million primary-age children not in school, 28.5 million are in conflict countries. Pretty soon the only children not in school in the world will be those living in conflict countries, not because they are hard to reach—mostly, they are easy to reach—but because the funding system has bypassed them almost entirely. That is a serious point for us and this House.
What needs to happen? First, humanitarian donors need to develop policies for education in emergencies that make education a central part of the first response phase, so when they go in, education is at the forefront of their minds. Secondly, the development side of Government donor offices need to stretch their understanding of education to include providing primary education in emergency settings—primary education is absolutely vital—and to do this in a way that builds, develops and protects the local education infrastructure. This has to be a prominent and early part of their investment. Thirdly, total funding for education within humanitarian responses needs to reach at least 4% of total humanitarian funding in emergencies. That figure was given to me by War Child and it seems a fair one. This is the target supported by the Education Cannot Wait campaign, which is backed by the Global Education Cluster and the International Network for Education in Emergencies, so presumably it is a well-researched figure and it makes sense. Fourthly, there is a need to conduct an urgent review of the amount of humanitarian aid DFID allocates to education and child protection; the Minister can no doubt defend the Government’s position. Inclusion of this point in party manifestos would demonstrate a strong commitment to meeting the needs of children affected by conflict.
As chairman of my party’s Back-Bench committee on DFID and foreign affairs, I am involved in helping to write the manifesto. I do not know how much notice the Foreign Secretary will take of my comments, but I will do my best. The Minister might take back to the Foreign Secretary the suggestion to include a phrase or sentence about education in our party manifesto, and perhaps the Labour party will consider doing the same thing, because manifestos are very important. Once it is there in writing in the manifesto, when whoever wins the next election comes to frame their humanitarian responses, education will be at the forefront of their minds. Also, Members of Parliament need to talk about these things and to raise them up the political agenda, which is why this debate is important.
Before I sit down, perhaps I can give testimony from a family from Irbil in Iraq, which I have visited. This family testimony was given to me by War Child. It was of interest to me because I have been to northern Iraq, not with War Child but with another charity, and the situation there is appalling. It was terrible to hear what people had to say. There was a mother. She and her family had been living in Baghdad, and her husband and son went to church and were never seen again. They just vanished—kidnapped, and obviously murdered. There was mother after mother like that. The situation in northern Iraq is, dare I say it, even more terrible than what is going on in Palestine, so may I give a tiny mention for a part of the population there with whom I have worked? In the conflict in northern Iraq there is no doubt that the Christian communities around Mosul— I have visited their villages—are in an extraordinarily stressed situation now. They are being driven from their villages by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, and what is happening to the children does not bear thinking about.
So let me read out this family testimony from Irbil in Iraq, because it is important for me to put it on the record as it is personal experience, which is always more interesting than general comments:
“War Child met with a mother of two young boys aged nine and twelve who had suffered displacement three times as a result of the recent violence and ended up having to smuggle themselves into a place of safety. Their reason for leaving their home town was the mother’s fear of her sons being recruited to fight in the violence. The devastated 12-year-old told War Child, ‘I just want to be in school’. He has been forced to leave his education during his exams which will mean all previous years of schooling will count as a ‘fail’ within the system. He is unable to go to school as an Internally Displaced Person (IDP) because when the family fled they had to leave all belongings, including the necessary certification, at home.”
The report continues:
“They are sharing rented accommodation with another three families and will run out of money at the end of the month. ‘We have nowhere to go’, the mother told us. ‘When our money runs out we will have no choice but to sleep in the public park.’ There are many families already sleeping in the rough and engaging in casual labour or begging for survival. ‘We are so frustrated and so humiliated. I used to work and have a normal life and now I have no idea what will happen to us,’ the mother said.
Let me sum up the arguments. To me, the education part of this debate is one of the most interesting and the most important. Sadly, humanitarian actors still often do not prioritise education programming at the start of an emergency. I accept, as I said, all the problems that they face, but education must be at the forefront of their minds. This is still considered something to pick up six months into or after a conflict. Instead, there is no reason why children cannot continue in school if authorities or humanitarian actors have the right support. Surely we can all agree that children have a right to education throughout their childhood. Schools can keep children safe and they are important environments for being able to provide other services such as social care to address trauma.
In the Central African Republic where an appalling conflict is going on, most of the schools in the capital are not open. This is largely due to the collapsed Government’s inability to continue paying teachers’ salaries, and the humanitarian NGOs that are providing most of the services in the city cannot access enough funding for education in particular, so reopening schools is not the priority. As a result, in the capital city large numbers of children are not in school. It is not just a question of funding. Unfortunately, the reality is that aside from conflict, the quality of education on offer in these countries is incredibly low. We need to ensure that once in school, children actually learn. Levels of violence are also shockingly high, with corporal punishment widely used. Organisations such as War Child and Save the Children are trying to address all these issues. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will try to help them. Schools need to be safe spaces, with zero tolerance being shown if they are attacked or used by armed groups.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak this debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), and I am sure we can continue to highlight these issues and ensure that in these desperate situations our children all over the world get a decent education.
Ukraine
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
This is a very important point and it is one of the things I went to Moldova to discuss with its Government. Of course, the opening up of a closer economic relationship with EU countries is a major opportunity for them. Already, when Russia stopped buying Moldovan wine, which is one of its principal exports, the EU opened up to Moldovan wine. We may have to be ready to do that in other areas of the economy as well. The Moldovan Government made a number of requests to me on my visit, and I am thinking positively about all of them and discussing them with my EU colleagues.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
While in no way condoning Mr Putin’s actions, I just wonder if the EU has played into his hands. Should not peace and reconciliation be our objective now? Should we not in this context reassure Russia that we have no intention of dragging Ukraine into our orbit by Ukraine joining NATO, that any free trade associations with the EU will be balanced with free trade associations with Russia, as Mr Putin proposed, and that there should be full devolution for east and west Ukraine?
Mr Hague
We have always made it clear—and I make it clear again now, as I did in my statement—that we have always seen Ukraine as having strong relations with east and west and that it has never been our objective to pull Ukraine in a direction that means it loses its important economic and political relations with Russia. I think that that message is very clear and we are clearly supporting, in the work of the OSCE, decentralisation in Ukraine in a way that is acceptable to the whole of its population, including its regions. I therefore think the problem has lain in the perception of Russia—an inaccurate perception—rather than in the actions of western countries.
Ukraine
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alexander
I want to make a little more progress.
Today, the European Union is Russia’s largest economic partner, with an annual trade of £275 billion. The UK alone handles at least £2 billion of Russian business in financial services a year. Let us also remember that as a result of the corruption that I have mentioned, the Russian economy has witnessed significant levels of capital flight in recent years, as well as rising levels of Russian prosperity as a consequence of energy. In that sense, there is a real and enduring vulnerability among the Russian elites to the travel bans and asset freezes that have been put on the table by other European leaders in recent days. Let us also not forget that a central part of President Putin’s claim to legitimacy in the Russian Federation has been based on a guarantee of rising prosperity. However, we have already seen the effect that the proposed actions by European leaders has had on the rouble and the Russian stock exchange.
In the immediate term, the most powerful means to alter the Kremlin’s course is to target those elites on whom it relies for its support. That is why I hope that at the European Council meeting due to take place later this week, EU leaders will consider further expanding the list of Ukrainian and Russian officials subjected to these targeted measures. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s indication that that appears to be the British Government’s approach, ahead of the Council meeting on Thursday and Friday. I would also be grateful if the Leader of the House could confirm in his winding up whether, at that Council meeting, the UK Government will be urging the cancellation of the EU-Russia summit, which is still scheduled to take place in Sochi in June.
Labour has also argued that further diplomatic pressure can and should be applied in the short term by seeking agreement among the G7 on suspending Russia from the G8 group of the world’s largest economies unless President Putin changes course. I was intrigued by the Foreign Secretary’s remarks at the Dispatch Box on that subject. I understand that indications have been given by No. 10 since this debate began that the British Government could take further action in relation to the G7, as distinct from the G8. Will the Leader of the House clarify the position, not only on the cancellation of the G8 meeting but on Russia’s suspension from the G8? I think that the Foreign Secretary has indicated the willingness of the G7 countries to meet together as an alternative grouping to the G8, as a result of the Russians’ recent flagrant breach of the law.
Given the precedents that have been set by Russia, the European Union must also be prepared to increase the pressure if the short-term measures are unsuccessful. I certainly welcome the bilateral measures, which we heard about for the first time this afternoon, relating to UK-Russian military co-operation and to the steps that the UK Government are taking in relation to arms exports. In the medium term, the European Union must be prepared to consider stronger sanctions against Russia’s broader economic interests, such as its energy exports or its banking sector. Such decisions should not be taken lightly, and the burden on EU domestic markets must not be ignored, but, if required, those options must remain available to European leaders when they gather in the coming days.
Alongside short and medium-term pressure on Russia, it is also surely vital that the European Union considers the long-term strategic implications of the current crisis. I welcome the fact that at yesterday’s meeting EU Foreign Ministers met the EU Energy Commissioner. I encourage the EU to undertake urgent work on exploring ways of proliferating and diversifying European energy imports in the future.
Let me turn now to my final substantive point. As the Opposition, we do not believe that the crisis can be resolved simply by applying ever more pressure on Russia to change course. Effective engagement with Russia remains key to helping secure the diplomatic de-escalation and resolution of the crisis. In particular, the work done by EU High Representative Cathy Ashton in engaging with President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov in recent weeks has been welcome. I also welcome the dialogue that took place last week in London between the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, and the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov. At that meeting, the Secretary of State made it clear that in the view of the United States, Russia has legitimate interests—historical, cultural and strategic—in Ukraine.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the tone of this part of his speech. Despite everything that has been said over the past hour, we do have a bit of a problem in that a majority of people living in Crimea want to be part of Russia, and they had been part of Russia for 300 years, apart from administrative diktat in recent times. They also have a right to self-determination.
Mr Alexander
The hon. Gentleman’s point is a moot one given the circumstances in which the referendum took place. No one disputes the fact that there is a significant number of Russian speakers within Crimea, but it is a dangerous path to walk to suggest that the circumstances in which that referendum was conducted—in the shadow of Russian guns—in any way provide a free and fair expression of the will of the people of Crimea. Incidentally, it was also a flagrant breach of the Ukrainian constitution. Although it is important to recognise that Russia has legitimate interests, it is equally important to be clear and categoric in our condemnation of the referendum that took place at the weekend.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) quoted John Quincy Adams who famously warned against his country going out seeking “monsters to destroy”.
I declare an interest: I have been interested in Russian culture and history ever since my Russian Orthodox wedding to my Russian Orthodox wife. I have visited Kiev, and I want to explain to the House how important Ukraine is to the Russian people. In our island, secure as we are, we sometimes do not understand the importance of history and of fear, and of the great fear of the Russian people. I am neither pro-Russian nor pro-Ukrainian, because I am also sympathetic to Ukrainians living in western Ukraine who are Catholic Uniates, and I understand the divisions of that country.
History is everything. My wife’s grandmother escaped through Crimea in 1918, and her first husband was dragged out of the woods and shot by Bolsheviks, simply because of his name and title. The Russian people—this is seared into their soul—went through the most appalling suffering during the second world war, not least in Crimea. When one goes to Kiev, as I have done, and walks around the Russian Orthodox cathedrals, one understands the Kievan Rus’, which was founded 1,000 years ago. Ukraine is not just some settlement. I am not apologising or being an apologist for Putin or what he has done; I am just trying to explain to the House how importantly Russians feel about the future of Ukraine, and how sensitive we must be to their sensibilities. That particularly applies to Crimea, which has been Russian since the time of Catherine the Great, and Russian speakers are the dominant part of the population. I know that the Tatars have been treated appallingly, but—again, the House will not like what I say—many Russians believe that some elements of the Tatar population collaborated with what they call the fascist invaders.
Angela Smith
We must remember that Finland, too, was occupied by Russia for a considerable period. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Russians have an affinity with Finland that perhaps gives Russia the right to think about what to do in a place like Finland? It still holds some Finnish territory.
Sir Edward Leigh
No, of course I do not. Finland was also occupied by Sweden, but there is no time to debate that. Ukraine is a completely different ball game to Russians than Poland. My point is that Ukraine is an extraordinarily divided country. This is not a simple, liberal argument about a long-standing independent united country and a foreign aggressor. Western Ukraine is fiercely anti-Russian. As I said, it is Catholic Uniate, its capital city is Lviv, and formerly it was largely inhabited not by Ukrainians but 80% by Poles who were forcibly removed by Stalin. Before that it was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire and was called Lemberg. The whole of western Ukraine is therefore passionately opposed to Russia—quite understandably—and wants to break free.
The eastern part of the country around Donetsk and Crimea is a completely different state of affairs. We must be aware that however many speeches we give, and however many sanctions we impose, this is not just about a tyrant—Putin—invading a foreign country. A great proportion of the Russian population feels very strongly that the west is imposing double standards. The west insisted on self-determination for the Kosovans, and Serbia is very close to the Russian heart as a fellow Orthodox country. The House may not agree with that, but that is their point of view, and imposing any amount of sanctions will not change it.
We must stop playing power games. It is too dangerous a situation, and the west must realise that it cannot tear Ukraine away from Russia. We must stop these games of Ukraine ever joining NATO—thank God Ukraine is not in NATO because we would be involved in a war. We must stop these games.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My hon. Friend said yesterday in Defence questions what a different position we would be in had we let Ukraine become part of NATO. We must realise and impress on Russia that membership of NATO involves the criterion that an attack on one is an attack on all. If we are not prepared to protect a country in that way, we must not give it bogus guarantees.
Sir Edward Leigh
I must finish shortly as others want to get in.
An attack on one NATO country is an attack on all of them. Poland is a completely different state of affairs from Ukraine. As I have said, we must stop the power games of trying to detach Ukraine from Russia. It is not going to happen. Russia will not allow it to happen, any more than we would allow an integral part of what we consider to be important to our soul and our history to be detached from us. It is a dangerous game—[Interruption.] Well, somebody has to give an alternative point of view. There is no point in the House of Commons if we all agree with each other all the time. I am trying to explain the Russian point of view.
Encouraging Ukraine to join NATO is obviously absurd, but it is also extraordinarily dangerous to encourage Ukraine to join the EU. As I said, I am neither pro-Russia nor pro-Ukraine, and I am in favour—this may be a cliché—of peace and humanity. I want Ukraine to have a devolved system of administration so that the west can run itself, as can the east. Ideally if we can think in terms of free-trade areas and Ukraine having some sort of free-trade agreement with the EU, that is positive, sensible and acceptable to Russians. However, we should please not take any step further, because we will be indulging in extraordinarily dangerous power games.
Ukraine
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
We have very important regulations in this country covering politically exposed persons—banking regulations cover them—and we have strong laws on money laundering. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said about agreeing with the Ukrainian Prime Minister yesterday about the recovery of assets stolen from Ukraine. Our options are open on that.
Given our experience of applying sanctions to several parts of the world in recent years, I would only add at the moment that if we are to apply sanctions to individuals we must be very sure of our case legally and have the evidence to sustain cases through court proceedings. We have to bear that in mind.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Surely we must ensure that we cannot be accused of double standards. We were rightly prepared to violate the territorial integrity of Serbia to protect the right to self-determination of the Kosovans. Presumably, we should look equally kindly on the right to self-determination of the ethnic Russians in Crimea and Donetsk. Therefore, can we please resist the wilder talk of economic sanctions, which can only damage the fragile recovery of Europe, and instead engage in diplomatic dialogue with Russia and Ukraine?
Mr Hague
As my hon. Friend can gather, we are engaged in every channel of diplomatic dialogue and that will continue. As I have said, I will be in Paris tomorrow at the same time as Foreign Minister Lavrov. Our diplomatic efforts with Russia will continue at all times.
However, as other Members have said, it is right to have a response that goes beyond that. That is why we have announced certain measures in respect of the G8, why the EU has made an announcement about the visa regime and why I have said that other options are on the table. Such a challenge to international order and the maintenance of the UN charter and international law cannot possibly go ahead without costs and consequences.
Ukraine, Syria and Iran
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. From a sedentary position, the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) moderately unkindly suggested that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) was “bonkers”. I do not seek to make any judgment on that matter, but I simply remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman served for some years—he may still do so, for all I know—either as patron or president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, a post for which I think the whole House will agree he was extremely well equipped.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I express that last question in a slightly gentler way by asking if we can avoid any Russophobia in this debate? “Ukrayina” means “borderland” in Russian, and Ukraine has always been a legitimate sphere of Russian interest. In the shape of the Kievan Rus, it was the foundation of the modern Russian state in 800 AD, so can we accept that only the Russians can bail out this state to any significant extent and we have to work with them?
Mr Hague
Russophobia, as my hon. Friend described it, certainly has no place in our diplomacy on this issue. It is very important for Russia to respect the democratic wishes of the people of Ukraine; it is important for all nations to do that. However, it is also important for all of us not to describe this as a binary choice for people in Ukraine. It is important for Ukraine to have a future in which it is able to have close links and co-operation with the European Union and Russia. That should be what we are seeking, and Russian understanding of that is important to long-term stability in the region.
Sri Harmandir Sahib
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I was not actually standing, Mr Speaker, but if you want me to, I will ask one very short question. Why were we consulted in the first place—why us?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman was certainly standing at one point because he is on my list. Anyway, he is the most dextrous of fellows and is always capable of adjusting, as he has just proved.
Persecution of Christians
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Simmonds
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, but I re-emphasise the fact that we strongly support freedom of religion for all, including in China—the example he gave—in accordance with international frameworks to which the United Kingdom and China are both party. We regularly raise the issue of religious freedom with the Chinese Government, and we have a UK-China human rights dialogue for detailed expert engagement, which will engage with this particular area, too.
Let me make a little progress, because I want to put on the record what the Government are doing about the persecution of those trying to practise their religion. We strongly believe that the freedom to practise, change or share one’s faith or belief without discrimination or violent opposition is a fundamental human right that all people should enjoy. We believe that societies that aim to guarantee freedom of religion or belief are stronger, fairer and more confident. The situation facing Christians in the 21st century is alarming. Research by the Pew Research Centre acknowledges that Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world—a point made powerfully by the hon. Member for Strangford. The Government recognise that, and the persecution of Christians worldwide was the central focus of Baroness Warsi’s keynote speech at Georgetown university on 15 November. In that speech, we called for unity in confronting the intolerance and sectarianism that leads to minority communities being persecuted around the world and to a mass exodus of Christians from places where they have co-existed with the majority faith for generations. In the speech, she presented her vision for a cross-faith, cross-continent response to the problem, with a positive, practical focus on promoting the benefits of religious plurality to societies.
A key element of that speech was that our response to the persecution of Christians should not be sectarian. We should not be standing up for our co-religionists or Christians in particular; we should be supporting the right to freedom of religion or belief for all, as set out in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. History points out that intolerance is defeated only when we come together. People of all faiths and none should be appalled when a bomb goes off outside a church. Indeed, both Muslims and Christians have come together to protect each other’s place of worship, and, as in the case of the terrible suicide bomb attacks on All Saints’ church in Peshawar, to donate blood for the victims. That needs to be the response that we all take to the global crisis affecting Christians.
We should speak out on behalf of Christians. That is what we have done, for example, when we condemned the recent attacks that took place in Pakistan, which killed and injured so many innocent people. We should lobby for changes in discriminatory laws and practices that affect religious minorities, including Christians. We will continue to do that when, for example, an Iranian pastor is arrested for setting up a church in a house or for sharing his faith. We meet Christian leaders from around the world to gain a better understanding of their concerns and the issues affecting them. Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers met Patriarch Gregorios III on 16 October to discuss the plight of Christians in Syria—the hon. Member for Strangford made a powerful point about that.
We are active in supporting local Christian communities. That is why for a number of years we have supported the work of Canon Andrew White in Iraq, bringing together religious leaders across sectarian divides to denounce violence that occurs in the name of religion. Similarly, when I went to Kaduna in northern Nigeria—another example cited by the hon. Gentleman—I met religious leaders across the religious divide to see the valuable inter-faith work that was taking place there. I wish to discuss Nigeria in my closing remarks, if the House will allow me.
However, I do not believe that making it our policy to defend Christians in particular is going to help them in the longer term. There is a risk of isolating them from the wider populations, identifying them as something of a fifth column and even exacerbating the persecution that they may be suffering. Instead, we should be supporting the building of societies that respect human rights, the rule of law and the equality and opportunity of all citizens, and spelling out that all freedoms of religion or belief are a universal concern.
We are also making the case that countries that protect minority rights are stronger, fairer and more confident. If people are free to believe and to worship, they can make a bigger contribution to society, boost the economy and guard against violence, extremism and social strife. Other countries should protect Christians not just because it is the right thing to do, which it is, but because it is in their interests to do so. The freedom of religion is a fundamental human rights priority for this Government, which means that we pursue it as a major element of our bilateral work, our lobbying of other Governments and our human rights programme funding.
We have equipped our staff with a toolkit to monitor and address concerns about freedom of religion or belief around the world. Our toolkit has provided the inspiration for the European Union’s own guidelines on freedom of religion or belief, and we have played a central role in securing both their adoption and implementation. We continue to play a leading role within the EU in making this a priority across member states in terms of focusing on particular countries of concern, programme funding or staff training. It is also a focus of our multilateral work at the UN and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Multilaterally, we are working through the UN to ensure that states implement the Human Rights Council resolution that focuses on combating religious intolerance, protecting the human rights of minorities and promoting pluralism in society.
During the UN General Assembly ministerial week at the end of September, we convened a second meeting of international leaders to discuss what more politicians can do to promote freedom of religion or belief and to fight religious intolerance wherever it occurs within our society.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister says that we should not focus too much on Christians—I understand that—but if we accept that argument we should not have complained about the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany because that would have made them a target. I do not necessarily accept all his arguments. He must accept that the overwhelming number of persecutions in the world today are against Christians. That is a fact, and so we have to focus on Christians for better or worse.
Mark Simmonds
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. He says that the majority of those who are persecuted for their religious belief are Christians, but there are others who are suffering as well—people of different religions and of no religious faith. Another example that the hon. Member for Strangford gave was the appalling atrocities that are taking place in the Central African Republic, where Muslims are persecuting Christians and Christians are persecuting and murdering Muslims. The actions of both groups are completely and utterly unacceptable, and the United Kingdom Government need to do everything they can to ensure that a person can pursue their religion, whatever it is, without fear of persecution or intimidation.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I very much agree with all that my good friend the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) has said and support the comments on Assyria. I do not know whether you managed to get some rest on Sunday, Mr Speaker, and watch once again on BBC4 the excellent French film entitled “Of Gods and Men”. It is a very beautiful film about the appalling murder of six Benedictine monks in the Atlas mountains. It is such a moving film because there is one scene in which Father Christian confronts one of the terrorists—the same terrorist who ultimately decapitates him and his fellow monks. Father Christian starts reading from the Koran in Arabic and quotes directly the passages that exhort all Muslims to be peaceful to other religions. The terrorist completes the verse. That makes most powerfully the point that we should make in this debate: in practising our own religion, in no way do we diminish the practice of other religions or people’s ability to practise their religion in any way they wish.
Sir Edward Leigh
I shall give way only once in a moment.
Many of the people we are discussing—the persecuted Christians of the world—are the poorest of the poor. In Pakistan in particular, they are very much at the bottom of the heap, and they are denied human rights. All that they require in their simple lives is an ability to practise their religion, so this debate sends a powerful message about their right to freedom of expression.
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend says that in no way do we diminish other people’s right to practise their religion if we practise our own. Society has enhanced that right: where we respect the right of one religion and people of one faith to practise their faith, we respect all if we respect that properly.
Sir Edward Leigh
I would like to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) said in his powerful speech. It is slightly regrettable—I say this gently—that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary spoke at the beginning of the debate. It is increasingly the practice for Ministers to speak early in debates—I make this point particularly to you, Mr Speaker—but it is important that they listen carefully and respond. [Interruption.] The Minister will give a winding-up speech, but it will be much shorter than it would have been.
I have taken part in every one of these debates, and I have heard this Foreign Office speech many times before. Dare I say that I do not detect a sense of burning anger about what is happening to Christians? This is something that has increased, and it is one of the most terrible things happening in the world today. Of course we should regret, attack and be angry about any persecution of any religion. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned that Christians were persecuted in 105 countries, or their human rights were somehow limited, but she immediately tried to be relative—I think that there is a danger of relativism in this debate—and said that there were 101 countries where Muslims had their rights affected. That may be strictly true, but the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming number of really violent and dangerous persecutions, killings and denials of human rights are directed at Christians, which is why we should congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who continues, year on year, to raise the issue. It is down to the DUP, not the Conservative Government or the Labour Opposition, that this debate is taking place on the Floor of the House, and the hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on that.
This debate is not a relative debate about human rights. It is a debate about the persecution of Christians. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, speaking with all the authority of his office, and everyone who has taken part in this debate demand that the Government take this more seriously and speak out more powerfully. There was an appalling case in All Saints church in Peshawar in which 120 Christians were blown up. How much publicity was there about that case? If a similar outrage were perpetrated by a Christian suicide bomber going into a mosque and blowing up 120 Muslims, it would be considered appalling, and the House can imagine the consequences worldwide for Christians.
I am afraid that, for all the warm words from the Foreign Office, there is still a lack of real determination to speak out. We have been in this space before, with the persecution of the Jews in the 1930s and the persecution of many minorities over time, where we as a Government have drawn back because of trade and other considerations of national policy, and we have not been prepared to speak up for minorities.
I want to follow what my friend the hon. Member for Ealing North, said, because I have been there. Like him, I have been to Iraq, and I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that there is nothing more terrible than what happened to a mother I spoke to. The last time she saw her child was when he went off to church with her husband. The husband was kidnapped and never seen again. The child was murdered just because of his religion—for no other reason. My friend and I will never forget those conversations, because those attacks revealed an appalling level of hate. We invaded Iraq and we have a responsibility, so we cannot pass by on the other side. Maybe we invaded for good reasons, but we do have a responsibility.
Stephen Pound
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was extraordinarily humbling and salutary to realise that the language in which that mother addressed us through a translator was Aramaic, the language of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?
Sir Edward Leigh
It was moving. To listen to a mass in Aramaic is an extraordinary experience.
I make no apology for Saddam Hussein, and I quite understand the comments that have been made about Iraq, but things have become much worse since the invasion. The fact of the matter is that Iraq’s Christian population has fallen from around 1.2 million to around 600,000, because tens of thousands have fled. When I was in Mosul, in ancient Nineveh, Christians were being murdered and dozens of families were fleeing. Where did they flee to? They fled to Syria. What did we have a debate about at the end of August? We had a debate, once again, on the need to bomb Syria. Thank God some of us refused to support that and the House of Commons said no. Otherwise, what would have been the fate of the Syrians?
I have also been to Syria and heard numerous appalling examples of what is happening to innocent Christians there. Again, I make no apology for the Assad regime, but under his father there was a degree of protection. Can the Government be so sure that in arming those they call the “good” rebels, or encouraging them—they claim that they have in no way armed them—they are not also leeching support and armaments to the bad rebels? There have been appalling examples of persecution in Syria. Mass graves have been found in the village of Sadad, where 46 Christians were murdered and where a family of six—this is just one family—were blindfolded and shot in the head. A 26-year-old, Ninar Odisho, was shot in the street, murdered for his faith. I could go on and on with such appalling examples of violence and hatred shown towards that ancient Christian community in the middle east.
Pakistan has been mentioned. Quite rightly, there was wonderful worldwide publicity about the shooting of Malala Yousafzai and her courage in resisting the Taliban, but how much coverage has there been of Kashmala Munawar, a Christian girl who lost one leg and nearly lost the other when she was blown up because of her religion? As I said earlier, how much worldwide coverage has there really been of the appalling massacre in Peshawar?
This debate is timely. I very much hope that when the Minister responds he will reflect the powerful mood of the House of Commons. This cannot go on. We cannot have tens of thousands of people around the world losing their human rights, or having them endangered, and thousands being murdered. The Government have a role to play in articulating our anger. It must stop.
Diplomatic Relations (Spain)
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Which Royal Navy warships are currently in the waters around Gibraltar, and do not these provocations give the lie to those who have complacently argued for years that the Royal Navy was not important? The best preservation of peace is the strength of the Royal Navy.
Mr Lidington
No one in this Government has ever decried the importance of the Royal Navy. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on ship deployments.
Iran
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) was sighing loudly from his seat; he may now speak forcefully on his feet.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
How can we trust the Iranians—a terrorist regime that poses a grave danger to the Arab world and to Israel and has a long history of lying and duplicity? This is from their own chief nuclear negotiator:
“While we were talking to the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipments in parts of the nuclear conversion facility in Isfahan... By creating a calm environment…we were able to complete”.
So now they keep their centrifuges; they go on enriching uranium by up to 5%; and they pocket $7 billion. What is to stop them doing a North Korea and subjecting us to more blackmail in six months’ time?
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Thomas
I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. He was hiding at the back. His question to the Minister for Europe two weeks ago was extremely pertinent. He asked when the Prime Minister—or perhaps the Minister—would reveal which powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to repatriate to the UK as a result of the treaty change that is coming. Two weeks ago the Minister would not answer his hon. Friend, so perhaps he will give us an answer today.
Sir Edward Leigh
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to use parliamentary tactics to pepper this Bill with different dates for referendums, but I would like to know his real view. If there were a Labour Government, does he think there should be a referendum on whether we should stay in or out?
Mike Gapes
The hon. Gentleman is a great expert on Friday debates. I am prepared to listen carefully to him if he wishes to make further interventions, but at this stage of my contribution, I want to concentrate on the specifics of my amendments, not on hypothetical questions—[Interruption.] I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, but in my own time, a time of my choosing. As he knows, I do not have to disrupt the flow and the eloquence of debate on all the different amendments or the order in which I want to discuss them. I will come to his point later. As an expert on what happens on Fridays with private Members’ Bills, he will know that his intervention allows me to give more thought and more consideration to my contribution, perhaps making it a little lengthier than would otherwise be the case.
Phil Wilson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need an independent report to prove why staying in Europe is vital.
Let me finish my comments on Nissan by giving some other statistics. Nissan has said that if the UK leaves the EU its export potential to Europe would be hit by 10% tariffs on exports of vehicles and 5% on components. That is a company worth consulting before embarking on a Bill, the contents of which will cause four years of uncertainty for the UK and the north-east economy.
Nissan might be 20 miles away from Stockton South, but the Hitachi Rail Europe factory is even closer. It started its construction phase this month in Newton Aycliffe in my constituency, which is adjacent to Stockton South. The president of Hitachi, Hiroaki Nakanishi, said on 10 October while speaking in Tokyo about the UK’s relationship with the EU,
“any exit…could lead to less investment”.
He also said:
“The UK should be a member of the European Union from the standpoint of our operations”,
and went on to say:
“For Japanese businesses, the UK and the Continent are very complementary”.
Rather worryingly for my constituents and, I should have thought, for those of the hon. Member for Stockton South, Mr Nakanishi also said Hitachi
“would have to reconsider how to manage our total railways business”.
Alistair Dormer, the chief executive officer of Hitachi Rail Europe, was reported in The Northern Echo on 5 November as saying:
“We regard Europe as potentially our biggest market and we should not want anything to happen that would damage the relationship and put up barriers, we should stay in”.
Hitachi’s investment will bring train building back to the north-east of England, initially creating 730 jobs with 3,000 more potentially in the supply chain. As I said, the construction phase of the factory started this month. The Secretaries of State for Transport and Business, Innovation and Skills were at the launch on 1 November.
Sir Edward Leigh
Obviously, the hon. Gentleman wants Britain to stay in the European Union. That is perfectly okay and he can make those arguments in a referendum. Is he in favour of a referendum, and if so, when?
Phil Wilson
I do not agree with a referendum in four years’ time given that nobody knows what the question will be. That will create a lot of uncertainty which will threaten jobs not just in my constituency but everywhere else in the country. Those are the issues that I believe the hon. Gentleman should recognise.
The hon. Member for Stockton South turned up to the launch on 1 November. As The Northern Echo said the next day:
“Mr Wharton is the Conservative MP for Stockton South, whose private member’s Bill will see MPs vote this Friday on whether to hold a referendum on the UK’s membership with the EU.”
The report went on:
“It’s ironic that the Tory backbencher was happy to celebrate the investment Hitachi is making in the North-East, while championing a cause that jeopardises the region’s chances of securing similar job boosts in the future.”
I could not agree more.
Mark Hendrick
Is not the reason for the silence from the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) blatantly clear? The question of a referendum is uppermost in the minds of Conservative Members but none of them can decide which measures they want to see withdrawn from the European Union—
Sir Edward Leigh
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. By your reckoning, has my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) been silent this morning?
Mr Thomas
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), and to have had the chance to listen to the contributions from the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and more recently the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).
I shall come to amendment 68, the lead amendment, in due course, but I begin with amendment 3 in the name of the hon. Member for Windsor. I pay tribute to him. Despite considerable pressure to present a façade of party unity, he has stuck to his guns and followed through on his determination to press for a referendum next year. I can immediately see three tempting reasons why the House might want to support the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. First, as the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay reminded us, the whole House knows that the Prime Minister and many in the Conservative party are obviously on different pages with regard to Europe. Amendment 3 therefore offers us the chance to underline once again just how divided the Conservative party is on that great European obsession of theirs.
The second tempting reason to support the amendment is that if one believed that the Prime Minister will not or cannot repatriate sufficient powers and competences from the European Union to Britain, which I think is the view of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), through the treaty change that he believes is coming, and by the entirely arbitrary deadline that the Bill establishes, one might be tempted to think, “Well, let’s just crack on with a referendum next year.” The third tempting reason is that the pragmatist in all of us in the House today can recognise that the British and the European calendars are likely to be so busy in the run-up to the end of 2017 that the best time for a referendum might be next year.
Sir Edward Leigh
If Labour forms the next Government, will they give the British people a referendum?
Mr Thomas
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman attended the Second Reading debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the shadow Foreign Secretary, clearly set out our position on the question of a referendum. Let me restate it for the benefit of the House. If there has been a significant transfer of powers to the European Union, of course we are committed to the principle of a referendum.
Indeed, that was the position of every one of the main parties in this House. The only party that has changed its position since is the Conservative party, and we all know that that is because the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and other Conservative Back Benchers have bullied the Prime Minister into bringing forward this commitment now.
Let me go into a little more detail on the three tempting reasons to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Windsor. All of us remember that the Bill and its 2017 end date is the Prime Minister’s best effort to bridge the chasm within the Conservative party on Europe. It is the product of the unprecedented Back-Bench rebellion against the Queen’s Speech earlier this year. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and many of those who want to vote for his amendment either simply want to leave the EU or are quite frightened of UKIP. They know that the Prime Minister’s pledge is a stunt to keep them on board. Conservative councillors in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) certainly know it is a stunt. We have seen a three-line Whip, photos on College green, and Michael Green getting involved. It is just Lynton Crosby weaving away at the emperor’s new clothes so that the Prime Minister can put on the pretence of a united party.
Sir Edward Leigh
I cannot speak for the Minister, only for myself, but some of us want something very simple. We want to be able to control our own borders, fishing, agriculture and courts, and we want to stop small businesses being hit by ever more regulation. That is very clear and very simple, and that is the renegotiation that we want.