Persecution of Christians
Julian Lewis Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
During this debate, it has been reported by the police in Northern Ireland that, on 31 January, they uncovered a massive lorry bomb that was in the port of Belfast to be brought here to the mainland to be exploded on Brexit evening. I think that that reveals what fanaticism really looks like. We see the root of the persecution of Christians that we are talking about today in what was behind the attack that the police thankfully prevented on 31 January—fanaticism, hatred, anger—unjustifiable as it is.
I want to start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He is a remarkable chap, as everyone in this House will know, because of his diligence and his service to this cause. I do not think there is anyone on the Front Bench who is not collared by him several times every week on this subject, and rightly so. He is outstanding on this matter and he probably does not get enough credit for the actions that he takes. It is important for me to put that on record, as other Members from across the House and across the parties have also done. Well done, Jim.
The architecture of this room is imbued with significant high callings. Indeed, the words inscribed on the Chair that you sit on, Mr Deputy Speaker, read as follows:
“The hand that deals justly is a sweet smelling ointment. A heedful and faithful mind is conscious of righteousness…Praise be to God.”
That lies at the heart of our Christian beliefs. That sweet smelling ointment means that Christians behave in a different way, and when they face persecution, they do not retaliate in the way that others of different beliefs perhaps would. That inscription on your Chair is a potent reminder of the history—the Christian history—of this nation and a reminder that we should all be alert to the need to defend those of faith who are persecuted, both here at home and abroad. It is important that we are frank about what happens at home so that we can also speak about righteousness abroad. Frankly, it is unfortunate that within this nation, which likes to be called Christian, Christians are seen as fair game for attack, for ridicule and even for hatred. Those who unashamedly hold biblical or Christian beliefs here are often singled out for attack. If we wish to allow freedom of expression for others abroad, we should ensure that there is freedom of expression for religious and, yes, difficult beliefs at home. If we are going to promote freedom outside this nation, we should ensure that we defend freedom inside it.
The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) commented on the inequalities that persist in human rights legislation. Three years ago a huge banner was openly displayed—certain Members of Parliament even walk with that banner—bearing the words “F— the DUP”. When I reported the matter to the police, they told me that that was within the human rights legislation on freedom of expression. I challenged them by asking whether, if I were to have a counter banner, that would be permitted under my freedom of expression. I was told that it would not be allowed because it would provoke trouble. The hon. Member for Stone rightly highlighted these inequalities, and we should not be afraid to address these matters.
We have also seen attacks in this place. A leader of the Liberal Democrat party was effectively driven out of the leadership because he is a Christian and expressed Christian views. More recently we have read in the press about an attack on a prominent Labour party member who hopes to be leader of the party. She holds certain moral views and keeps them private, but because she holds those views, she is game for attack. We need to call those things out and recognise that if that is allowed to grow, we cannot really stand here and talk about religious freedom elsewhere. People must have that moral and religious freedom.
Around the world, as Members have already put on record, there are 260 million Christians who live in either a high or very high state of alert as a result of extreme levels of persecution. It has rightly been said that, if someone travels from Morocco in the north of Africa to Cameroon in the west, they will be in danger in each and every one of the countries they pass through, all of which have widespread persecution. We saw the despicable bombing of a place of worship—the softest of soft targets—in Colombo last year. Those with hatred in their hearts see places of Christian worship in particular as legitimate targets for attack because they are soft and easy. Our Government’s special envoy on this matter should see giving greater security to places of religious worship around the world, including Christian worship, as one of his tasks. There is no reason why embassies cannot task someone with an analysis of where such places are most at threat and of what additional security can be given to them.
Anyone who listened to the moving words of David Linsey, who lost his sister Amelia and his brother Daniel in that outrage in Colombo, must admire the demonstration of genuine Christian love and generosity to his enemy that he has expressed since the attack. He is admired internationally because of his comments about how he wants to respond to the violence that was inflicted upon his family. This nation should be proud that he has turned that hatred into a platform on which he can express his Christian love to others. I invite Members to meet David Linsey on 25 February when he will be in Parliament to talk about how he overcame his hatred of the people who carried out that attack.
The Government should also move further on my and other Members’ campaign to proscribe the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation which inspires hatred and attacks on Christians at home and abroad. Members have mentioned the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and its Foreign Secretary was here last week. He told MPs that his kingdom had banned the Muslim Brotherhood because it turns their sacred beliefs into a tool of hatred to inspire attacks against Christians in particular and against political freedom. It was amazing that he said that, but he also expressed amazement that the United Kingdom had not taken similar action to ban Muslim Brotherhood.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On that specific point, will the hon. Gentleman confirm my suspicion that the special report on the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in this country commissioned by David Cameron when he was Prime Minister has still not yet been made public?
Ian Paisley
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. It is amazing. This is an organisation that uses and abuses the beliefs of a whole culture to attack Christians and others, which is frightening and wrong. It hides in and uses mosques illegitimately for its hatred against Christians, and it is right and proper that the full facts about the Muslim Brotherhood in this nation are brought out. I will be meeting the Home Secretary’s staff next week to talk about the Muslim Brotherhood and will pursue its proscription in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
This has been a lively and at times impassioned debate, and it has been a testament to the strength of feeling throughout the House and the country that no one should suffer discrimination, violence or persecution because of their faith or belief, or for not following a faith. I shall try to respond to all the points raised and highlight the UK’s action on this issue.
First, we are deeply concerned about the way in which blasphemy laws are widely abused. The Government regularly apply diplomatic pressure to countries that abuse their blasphemy laws. That work is often done behind the scenes because of the sensitivity of the issue.
I know that Members care deeply about the treatment of religious minorities, including Christians, in Pakistan. I pay particular tribute, as so many others have done today, to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who works particularly hard to raise awareness of this issue. Let me answer the questions about Pakistan. The Government share the concerns expressed today and regularly urge the Government of Pakistan to ensure that all their citizens enjoy the full range of human rights, as laid down in Pakistan’s constitution and enshrined in international law. The Government strongly condemn forced marriage and forced conversions.
In India, our missions often bring together members of minority communities, including Christian groups, to better understand the religious and cultural divides, and to help to bridge them, including through the projects that we fund.
Colleagues understandably expressed particular concern about the safety and security of minority communities in the middle east in the light of recent events. Let me state clearly and on the record that the Government will continue to promote and protect human rights in the region. We will not shy away from urging Governments to protect the rights of all their citizens, in accordance with international human rights law.
Dr Julian Lewis
The Minister has several times mentioned the policy of urging and condemning, but the Government do have considerable financial leverage by way of the huge international development budget. Do the Government have a policy of using that budget, quite legitimately, to put pressure on Governments who abuse human rights, such that if they want to continue to get large amounts of aid they will have to mend their ways?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. That idea has been mentioned a couple of times and I will come to it in a little while.
UK Telecommunications
Julian Lewis Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman questioned the rigour of the decision, but as I set out in my statement, it follows—in fairness to the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), he acknowledged this—what has been a very thorough and extended assessment, including the telecoms supply chain review and the analysis on the security side by the National Cyber Security Centre. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) is at odds with all of that analysis, including that provided by the intelligence agencies to the Government. He mentioned some countries that have taken a different decision, but as far as I am aware, New Zealand has not taken the decision that he describes. I am afraid that he is wrong on that count. If he is calling for an outright ban he should say so, and he should also address square on the fact that the analysis that we have received shows that that would not be an effective, targeted or forensic way to address the security concerns rightly identified by the review that we conducted. It would not remove Chinese production from the UK telecoms supply. It would reduce competition, which he suggested is part of the problem, and that would make things worse. It would significantly increase the costs for industry and would delay the roll-out of 5G. On all counts, I say respectfully that he has got his analysis wrong.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do the Government accept something that I had difficulty getting their predecessor to accept—that Huawei should not be regarded as a private company because it is intimately linked with the Chinese communist state and its deeply hostile intelligence agencies? If they do accept that, as they should, are they confident that the safeguards that will be put in place will be sufficient to guard us against a deeply hostile intelligence agency, such as he implied in his statement we needed to do in relation to Russia ?
Dominic Raab
As I set out in my statement, we have been very clear that the relationship between any private business and a Government or state operator has been at the centre of the analysis that we and that the National Cyber Security Centre have conducted. Based on the distinction between the centre or core and the periphery or edge, the different restrictions that can be made on access, and the 35% cap on accessing the periphery, I am confident that we can provide my right hon. Friend with precisely the reassurance that he asks for.
Britain in the World
Julian Lewis Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dominic Raab
I am not sure it is likely to work exactly as my hon. Friend suggests, but I do take his point. We need to be very clear in our minds about the strategy we are charting and then reconcile our means, including our financial means, to those ends, so he makes an important point.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In support of what my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) has said, may I remind the Foreign Secretary that, in 2017-18, we had a national security capability review that sought to look at both security and defence together, but it was so limited by having to be financially or fiscally neutral that it meant that extra resources for, for example, cyber-warfare would be granted only at the cost of making cuts in, for example, the Royal Marines? That is no way to conduct a review—to play off one necessary part, say security, against another necessary part, such as defence.
Dominic Raab
I think my right hon. Friend makes an important point, although at the same time we need to be mindful of the overarching financial parameters that any Government—any responsible Government—are going to be within if we are to make credible investment decisions. Certainly, on the issue of cyber and its being somehow nudged out of focus or set up as a zero-sum game with troops, I can assure him that that will not be the case. Cyber increasingly plays an important role not just in our security, but in our ability to project our foreign policy.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It was genuinely a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) express himself in such fluent and consensual terms. The fact that he says his party is willing to agree with Government Members does not come as a surprise to me, because I know from my experience on the last two iterations of the Defence Committee, where I had the pleasure of serving alongside two Members of the SNP, that that is exactly true. That is how it was that, on a cross-party basis, all three parties represented on the Committee were able to agree at quite an early stage that defence expenditure is too low, and that something in the order of 3% of GDP is a more realistic target if Britain is to hold her head up in the world with safety.
Before I develop that theme, however, I want to pick up one point from the excellent speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), and that is his reference to the BBC, in which he concentrated on the World Service. In about 2011, when the then Sir Ming Campbell and I were both members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I remember that we learned with alarm of the coalition Government’s plan to stop the ring-fenced funding not only of the BBC World Service but of the vital BBC Monitoring Service based at Caversham Park. We expressed the view at the time that the result of putting that funding on the shoulders of the BBC in return for allowing the BBC to have its usual requested rise in the licence fee would come back to bite us—and so it did, because both those budgets were badly squeezed, and I think I am right in saying that in the end the Government felt it necessary to restore separate funding for the BBC World Service, but sadly not for the BBC Monitoring Service.
Mr Whittingdale
The position is that the BBC continues to fund the World Service, but it now receives an additional grant from the Foreign Office that has allowed it to expand its services. I very much hope that the Foreign Office will continue—and perhaps increase—that funding.
Dr Lewis
Yes, but the trouble is that no such grant was made to the BBC Monitoring Service, which is our principal source of what is called open-source intelligence—or, as the BBC prefers to say, open-source information. The Defence Committee produced a hard-hitting report entitled “Open Source Stupidity”, because that was entirely our opinion of the effect of that cutback by the coalition Government. It led directly to the closure of Caversham Park, and although BBC Monitoring continues to do very good work, it is a shame and a disgrace that it is not specially separately funded, as it used to be.
Coming back to the main topic, this is, as we know, a debate on Britain’s future place in the world. However magnified, however static or even however reduced our future place in the world may be, we have to be able to keep our country safe. As I never tire of explaining to the House, the basis of any sensible defence policy depends on three concepts: deterrence, containment, and a realisation of the unpredictability of future conflicts. The examples I always give—I fear that people will start joining in in a chorus if I do it again, but I do so nevertheless—are the Yom Kippur war in 1973 that took hyper-sensitive Israel by surprise, the Falklands war in 1982 that took us by surprise, the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 that took everybody by surprise, and the 9/11 attacks in 2001 that took the world’s then only superpower by surprise.
What do I conclude from the fact that most wars in the 20th century—I could give many more older examples —were usually not predicted significantly in advance? I conclude that if we are going to have an adequate defence policy, we have to be able to defend flexibly against a whole spectrum of future potential threats because we do not know which of those threats is going to materialise.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and excellent points. I want to draw him back to his comments about spending at least 3%. I do not believe that it is about 3%; it is about having the capability we need. The key word he has used is “flexibility”, and that does not have a percentage price on it; it has an equipment and capability price.
Dr Lewis
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, I have found through long experience that although it is a rather crude shorthand, this business of percentages is the one straightforward, simple and clear way of showing to the country what has been happening in relative terms, compared with other high spending Departments, to defence expenditure.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
May I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to oversimplify what is actually complex, and rightly so? Should not the debate be led by capability over the simplicity of saying that we meet a certain target? We do an assessment of where the threat picture is at, we determine what capability is required to meet that threat assessment, and we spend the money accordingly. Targets, while simple and easy to understand, do not paint the whole picture.
John Redwood
Does my right hon. Friend agree as well that in order to have flexibility, it is very important that we have the key military technologies under our own control, and the industrial capability of flexing up and greatly increasing our output of weaponry should disaster hit and we need to respond?
Dr Lewis
I do, and in this there is an important rebuttal of a point often made by those who think we can afford to cut out certain capabilities because we are members of an alliance and we can rely on other allies to supply capabilities that we ourselves do not have. That leaves out of account what happens if, heaven forbid, we are involved in a major conflict and one of our allies is knocked out and no longer able to supply us with the missing capabilities. So while we cannot do everything, we have to be able to do as many things as are possible within a reasonable financial envelope. My point about the percentages is that they give us a rough idea of what is reasonable at any given time in a country’s circumstances.
The spectrum of threats ranges from, at the most extreme end, nuclear obliteration, through conventional defeat and subjugation, to what is generally regarded in the terminology as 21st-century threats—terrorism, subversion, infiltration, disinformation, cyber and space. In the short time remaining, I want to focus on the point about which I had an exchange with the Foreign Secretary during his speech, and that is the question of the defence review.
My concern goes back to 2017, when, as I referred to in my intervention, we had something called the national security capability review. That was meant to look at defence and security altogether, but it was also meant to be fiscally neutral, which meant that if we decided that we wanted to spend more on dealing with so-called 21st-century threats—I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) nodding in recollection of and, I hope, agreement with my analysis—such as subversion or disinformation or especially cyber, we had to start cutting core conventional capabilities.
I draw the House’s attention, not for the first time, to a very revealing article in The Guardian, no less, on 26 June 2018, in which it was reported that there had been an “increasingly bitter stand-off” between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence. It read:
“The row has its origins in July last year, when the Cabinet Office announced the national security adviser, Sir Mark Sedwill, would conduct a review of the threats facing the UK and the capabilities needed to meet them. His brief was to look at the UK security needs in the round, taking in the intelligence agencies as well as the MoD. He was also to evaluate the risks posed by terrorists and cyber-attacks as well as from conventional forces.”
That sounds rather similar to what we heard today. The article continues:
“By the autumn, it was clear the intelligence agencies had come out on top and the MoD was looking at being forced to make cuts, with options ranging from reducing the size of the army from 77,000 to 70,000, cutting 1,000 Royal Marines and decommissioning two specialist amphibious-landing ships, HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion.
There was a consensus among mandarins involved in the negotiations the UK was less likely to need two specialist amphibious landing ships than the ability to defend against a cyber-attack on its infrastructure or financial networks.
But there was a backlash from an informal coalition led by Williamson,”—
my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson)—
“appointed in November, and the chairman of the defence select committee… as well as a score or more Conservative MPs (and Labour ones with defence jobs in their constituencies)...
One of the arguments from Tory backbenchers was the military were disproportionately represented”—
they mean under-represented—
“in negotiations dominated by politicians with no military background and by the intelligence agencies.
The counter-arguments were little aired in the media: that the UK should abandon its adherence to tradition and instead build a modern force, a pared-down one, with lower spending levels closer to comparable Europeans neighbours. Compared with the UK’s 2.1% of GDP spent on defence, France spends 1.79%, Germany 1.2%... Italy 1.1% and Spain 0.9%.”
The cat was out of the bag—the establishment and the Treasury wanted us to reduce our spending on what is conventionally understood as defence in favour of new capabilities. I entirely agree that we need to spend more on new capabilities, but why does that mean that we have to spend less on conventional capabilities when, as I set out at the beginning, we have no idea what the nature of a future conflict will be? As the threats are augmented and the dangers multiply, we should be spending more, not less.
I return to that rough yardstick of the percentage terms. The Defence Committee spent a lot of time trying to work out what really had happened to defence, because, as we know, the criteria were changed for calculating our GDP percentage expenditure on defence. We were able to establish objectively that
“calculated on a historically consistent basis”,
in the last four years for which figures are available, although officially we spent 2.2%, 2.1%, 2.1% and 2.1%, in reality—on the basis on which it used to be calculated —we spent 1.9%, 1.8%, 1.8% and, again, 1.8%.
I conclude by saying that it used to be the case that in the 1980s we spent roughly the same on defence, on education and on health. We now spend two and a half times on education and four times on health what we spend on defence. No one is asking to go back to the levels of expenditure, comparatively speaking, of the 1980s, but even in the mid-1990s we felt ourselves able to invest 3% of GDP on keeping ourselves safe, not the 4% to 5% that we spent in the 1980s. That is a worthwhile target, an acceptable target and a target to which the Government need to aspire.
Iran
Julian Lewis Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He makes a range of important points. The reality is that we still view the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as the best means of restraining those in the regime who wish to pursue a nuclear weapon, and that is a top priority—our overriding priority—for this Government. In relation to the wider nefarious conduct of the Government of Iran, I share all of his concerns and then some. The reality is that that is why we have always supported the Macron and Trump initiatives to try to bring Iran back to the diplomatic table and deal with all of those issues in the round—if there is a choice to be made by the regime. We will continue to hold Iran accountable for its actions, while leaving the diplomatic door ajar. Ultimately, this will have to be resolved through a negotiated diplomatic route. Who knows what will happen given the current constellation of factors and the change of circumstances in Iran, but, at some point, it will have to come to the negotiating table.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Given the parallels between the ruthless and reckless behaviour of Iran, and the way in which the late and unlamented Soviet Union used to behave, does the Foreign Secretary accept that a policy of long-term containment, as worked in the one case, is probably most likely to work in the other? If he does accept that, is he satisfied that our American allies are now communicating with us to the extent that they need to so that our troops, who are their partners, are not unduly affected by sudden, dramatic initiatives without warning?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend makes a series of important points, including about close consultation with our American partners. Of course, I discuss these issues regularly with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. I am not entirely sure that the analogy with the Soviet Union is quite right. There is at least the semblance of regular elections in Iran.
Dominic Raab
In fairness, not on the same level as in Iran. I think the question is the balance between containing the nefarious behaviour and ensuring—while holding Iran to account in the way in which my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members have mentioned—that there is still a route back to the negotiating table, and that is what we are seeking to pursue.