---

Orhan Pamuk

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on securing this debate. He is a long-time champion of intellectual freedom, as well as of Turkey’s accession to the European Union, and he made a passionate speech. I begin by officially placing on record the Government’s serious concern about the charges brought against the renowned author, Orhan Pamuk. Our hope, which has also been expressed by the Turkish Foreign Minister, is that Mr. Pamuk will be acquitted at the next hearing on 16 December. I also want to register concern about the recent charges, mentioned by my right hon. Friend, brought against the authors of a report reviewing Turkey’s approach towards its minority constituencies. That is a most unwelcome development. I was delighted that we were able to open accession negotiations with Turkey on 3 October. That has long been an objective of the Government. We feel strongly that Turkey’s prospective accession will be good for the UK, good for the EU and good for Turkey. One of the primary motivations for our policy remains our firm belief that the prospect of EU membership is providing a major impetus for a fundamental transformation of Turkey and, most important, encouraging greater respect for human rights. With the prospect of EU membership maintained through the launch of negotiations, I am confident that Turkey’s leaders will be able to continue on the path of reform that has brought them so far. I thank my right hon. Friend for this opportunity to focus minds on the task that lies ahead and, by citing the specific example of the charges brought against Orhan Pamuk, for highlighting the fact that we might not expect the transition in Turkey to European standards to proceed entirely smoothly. Last year, the December European Council was able to conclude that Turkey"““sufficiently fulfilled the Copenhagen political criteria””" due to the remarkable progress that the Turkish Government had made in their decisive and far-reaching reform process. Although it was widely acknowledged that the legislative framework in Turkey was much improved, it was also clear that full and consistent implementation of the reforms introduced would require concerted effort over a number of years. The Government are convinced of the Turkish Government’s commitment to reform. In response to the publication, on 9 November, of the European Commission’s 2005 regular report on Turkey’s progress towards accession, the Turkish Foreign Minister said:"““Our government is determined to implement the reforms, to deepen and strengthen democracy. We know our own deficiencies and we are determined to overcome them in the coming process.””" The Commission report noted that"““political transition is ongoing in Turkey””," but also that"““the pace of change has slowed in 2005 and implementation of the reforms remains uneven””." The report is clear about the significance of the new Turkish penal code and related pieces of legislation that recently came into force. It says that those"““should lead to structural changes in the legal system, particularly in the judiciary””." Of the penal code, it notes that"““in general, the Code adopts modern European standards in line with criminal law in many European countries””," but that"““concerns remain regarding articles which may be used to restrict freedom of expression””." The UK, like the European Commission, has been concerned that a number of decisions in Turkey, in relation to the expression of non-violent opinion, have led to both prosecutions and convictions. Notable among them were the charges brought against Orhan Pamuk, but also the prosecution on 7 October, mentioned by my right hon. Friend, of the Turkish writer, Hrant Dink, for insulting the Turkish identity, and the recent charges brought against the authors of a report on Turkish policy on minorities. I assure my right hon. Friend that, in our presidency, we have raised our concern about the case of Orhan Pamuk with the Turkish Justice Minister, in early September in the margins of the justice and home affairs informal ministerial, and again when Baroness Scotland visited Ankara on 11 November. Our ambassador in Ankara raised the case with the Turkish Foreign Minister last week, and drew his attention to the exchange in the House on 1 November that concluded that further reform would be necessary. Senior Turkish politicians believe that it is inappropriate for them to intervene, given the independence of the judiciary, but they expect the case to be dismissed when it goes to trial. I can confirm that European diplomats will attend the trial scheduled for 16 December. Several recent judgments suggest that the judiciary is increasingly acting in accordance with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. For example, on 24 October, a journalist, Rahmi Yildirim, who was facing trial for insulting the army, was acquitted after the prosecutor said that his article was not designed to insult anyone. International non-governmental organisations have suggested that broad and poor interpretation of the new penal code by the judiciary is, in part, the result of the vague wording of some of its articles. The European Commission agrees with that view and has said that it is most concerned about the articles that refer to offences against symbols of the state and its institutions, including article 301, under which Mr. Pamuk has been charged. Although equivalent articles exist in some parts of the EU, it is crucial that the judiciary enacts the legislation as the political Administration intend. The Commission’s regular report states:"““If the code continues to be interpreted in a restrictive manner, then it may need to be amended in order to safeguard freedom of expression in Turkey.””" The Turkish Prime Minister has himself acknowledged that further amendments to the code may be required and that the process of revision may continue for some years. The European Commission has also stressed that, in tandem, efforts to train judges, prosecutors and lawyers must be sustained. My right hon. Friend will know that, last year, the UK co-sponsored a project with the Turkish Ministry of Justice to train more than 8,000 judges and prosecutors in European law and human rights. It is encouraging therefore that, perhaps as a direct result of that and similar training programmes, the courts are reported to have referred to the European convention on human rights in 224 judgments since 2004. Clearly, that the judiciary fully understands that the provisions of the convention are of paramount importance. An amendment to the Turkish constitution in May 2004 recognises the supremacy of international instruments over domestic legislation, in effect, binding Turkey to the provisions of the convention, including article 10 on freedom of expression, and providing a means of recourse when poor decisions are made. Turkey’s human rights record and the functioning of its judiciary will be subject to intense scrutiny during accession negotiations, and advancement in negotiations will be guided by Turkey’s progress. The UK and EU will continue to stress to Turkey the need to safeguard freedom of expression and will raise cases, like that of Orhan Pamuk, where strong disparities with EU practice are clearly evident. However, notwithstanding the fact that Turkey must address such shortfalls, we should set them in the wider context of a country where a fundamental transformation is taking place rapidly to embrace enhanced democratisation—a transformation that we might not realistically expect to be achieved overnight or straightforwardly, but a transformation none the less and one of which my right hon. Friend is extremely supportive. The reforms of recent years in Turkey have been hugely impressive. They have required great courage on the part of Turkey’s political leaders, and the challenge of overseeing their implementation could be tougher still. The Turkish Government will have to work hard to bring about the culture shift required, and they might expect to encounter points of resistance. Again, my right hon. Friend mentioned them in his contribution. The Government, however, are of the firm conviction that Turkey’s leaders possess the will to see the process of reform through to its successful conclusion. The Turkish Prime Minister has always said that the reforms are first and foremost for the Turkish people themselves. The EU process has always underpinned the process of reform and acted as a spur to it. With the launch of negotiations, Turkey has set a course to follow for the future. I hope that we will all soon look back on events such as the charges facing Mr. Pamuk as the growing pains of a country maturing into a developing democracy. Having said that, it is important to recognise the here and now, and the situation that Mr. Pamuk faces. I stress the importance that the Government attach to the points made by my right hon. Friend. Clearly, the UK cannot interfere in the Turkish judicial system, but we do not believe that Mr. Pamuk should be brought before the courts. We will continue to make representations to the Turkish authorities about his case. I will gladly write to my right hon. Friend about the specific points that he made in his speech. The Government want to continue to raise our serious concerns about the fact that Mr. Pamuk is being brought before the courts.