Draft Bank for International Settlements (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2021

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2021 General Committees

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq.

As the Minister said, the order is simply designed to put in place the standard diplomatic immunities and privileges that go with the establishment of any international institution in the UK. The Opposition will not vote against it, but I have a number of questions.

The UK is a global leader in financial innovation and technology, and the Bank of England’s success in bidding to host the Bank for International Settlements Innovation Hub reflects our continued high standing. Technology is of course changing all aspects of the global economy, including in the global south, and technology will play a crucial role in ensuring that financial systems are effective, resilient and inclusive. It is also crucial to our economy, and we are at the forefront of many FinTech innovations. The establishment of the UK hub will allow us to collaborate with many others to innovate through research and other technical means.

The Bank for International Settlements is one of the world’s oldest financial institutions. It has played a significant role as the bank to central banks for more 90 years, from the central banks gold pool co-ordination during the early days of the Bretton Woods system through to supporting monetary co-operation among European Community central banks. It has also played a supportive role in many active financial co-operation initiatives and continues to do so, including working on new opportunities presented by environmentally friendly and green investment technologies. The Opposition are very happy to see the Bank for International Settlements establish a hub in the UK, and support the granting of the appropriate immunities and privileges.

We have seen some issues in the past associated with diplomatic status in the UK being abused or not used appropriately. Some examples have related to very serious cases, and others have related to the payment of parking charges and the congestion charge in London. How will the new immunities work? I note that the order contains an exemption relating to traffic penalties, but what is the Government’s standard on all such institutions? London is a hub, and we host many international bodies, including the International Maritime Organisation just across the river from us, so what is the Government’s policy on immunities?

The order allows for the exercise for the first time of the powers in section 12 of the International Development Act 2002. Can the Minister confirm whether any further regulations will be invoked under those powers? Can the Minister confirm that the host country agreement is similar to those put in place wherever the BIS has opened hubs around the world? Are we doing anything different from those other locations where it has established hubs or offices? Will any specific funding or resources be provided to the BIS by the UK Government, for example the use of property or any grant funding? Will any of that be earmarked as official development assistance spending? How will the activities of the London hub be made transparent and accountable, so that we understand the type of work it carries out? I am sure that there is much that we will want to welcome, but many questions surround some of the more negative aspects of international financial technology. We have heard some lively debates in the past few days about crypto currencies and trading based on Reddit tips and so on. I am assuming that the BIS hub will look at the positive ways in which innovation in FinTech can be used for the benefit not just of this country but globally, including those countries currently excluded from many financial processes. How will the hub balance those positive and potential negative aspects of FinTech?

The past three decades have seen the significant internationalisation of the BIS from its original European focus, but Europeans still account for 50% of its membership. Of the rest of the world, the number of countries with central banks and monetary authorities stands at five from South America, three from Africa and two from Oceania. The majority of the developing world across the global south is simply not represented. Will the UK as a member organisation of the BIS and as a host of the hub push for greater global representation to ensure that the work of the bank is fully inclusive?

We support the order and the standard process it represents, but I would appreciate some answers from the Minister to my questions.

Exiting the European Union (Sanctions)

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction to these sets of regulations. Let me be clear that the Opposition welcome these instruments to roll over the European Union sanctions regimes into UK legislation, and to clarify and ensure the applicability of a series of other measures. As the Minister has explained, these regulations apply to a wide range of country contexts, but are largely focused on targeted measures and on some specific themes, such as the misappropriation of state funds and the use of cyber-attacks.

The Labour Opposition want to see a global Britain as—as the Minister has described—a force for good in the world, with human rights, the rule of law and democracy at the heart of all our foreign policies. We have unique responsibilities as a member of the UN Security Council, the Human Rights Council and the Commonwealth, as well as in the international legal architecture. However, it is disappointing, as I have noted previously, to have seen the diminishing of the UK role in both human rights bodies and the loss of our seat, for example, on the International Court of Justice in recent years.

That said, as the shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), has made clear, we have supported and continue to support a strengthening of the UK sanctions regime to ensure that those who abuse human rights, attack civilians, threaten democracy, the rule of law and the rights and freedoms of civil society, or use corruption, torture and murder to further their own ends have no safe haven for themselves or their dirty money in the UK or our overseas territories.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Does that include sanctions against China?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will come to that point in due course. The right hon. Gentleman has made some important points, and he knows that those concerns are shared across the House, particularly with regard to the Uyghur minority and the shocking revelations that are coming out.

As a member of the European Union, the UK played a leading role in designating individuals and entities for targeted sanctions. We hope that, in seeking to maintain a close friendship with the European Union and our partners now that we have left, the Government will work closely with them as well as other like-minded countries and global institutions. We also hope that the Government will do more with the powers that we now have at our disposal through the Magnitsky sanctions regime, expanding their scope and usage, as well as increasing the transparency to the House, including about the processes by which decisions are made on designations for sanctions. I hope that the rolling over of these sanctions is a sign of the Government’s intention to maintain a collaborative and friendly approach with our friends in the EU.

Before turning to the individual countries and thematic sanctions that the Minister has outlined, I want to ask him a question. The transition period ended on 31 December last year. What has been in place in the interim weeks? Have these sanctions continued to apply? It is obviously very important that there have not been loopholes in the last few weeks, before these measures were brought before us.

First, on Burundi, we are fully supportive of rolling over the sanctions. The EU extended the sanction regime last year to last until 31 December this year. The last five years have unfortunately seen significant problems in respect of democracy and human rights. We hope that the new Government will seek to reverse many of the dangerous steps that the previous President and Government took. We saw the police, the National Intelligence Service and the ruling party’s youth wing carrying out extensive human rights violations, with allegations of extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and torture. In October 2019, four members of the Imbonerakure were convicted for killing a member of the opposition party, the National Congress for Freedom.

We believe that the Burundi Government must seek to release human rights defenders and journalists arrested under a crackdown on opposition. That includes Germain Rukuki, a former employee of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture, human rights defender Nestor Nibitanga and four journalists from the Iwacu press group who were arrested in October 2019, whose names I can provide to the Minister. We very much hope that Burundi will follow a process of re-engagement with international bodies on human rights, including allowing the UN human rights office to be reopened in the country and engaging with commissions from the UN Human Rights Council, which the UK has a key sea-t on.

On Guinea, we agree with the Government on rolling over these sanctions, which relate back to the significant violence we saw in 2009, in which 150 people were brutally killed in a stadium in the capital, Conakry, and hundreds more were wounded, with women being victims of rape and other forms of sexual violence. It was a deeply distressing time for the people of Guinea, and there was widespread condemnation from the international community. There was some progress in 2014, and some sanctions were released. Could the Minister say a little bit about what progress there has been since then and whether these sanctions have had the impact that we want to see?

On Bosnia, I visited Srebrenica with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—I believe you were on that trip, Mr Deputy Speaker—and we saw for ourselves the legacy of that terrible conflict in our own continent. I agree with the Government: it is vital that we continue to make clear our intent to stand against any of those who would undermine the security and peace that was so hard won by the general framework agreement for peace—the Dayton agreement—in 1995. That allowed for much progress, but significant tensions and concerns remain. Could the Minister clarify whether individuals have been or would be designated under this framework, or are we saying that the framework is in place to underpin the Dayton agreement and that we would not hesitate to use it with others to ensure peace and stability in that country, which is crucial for not only the people of Bosnia but the wider Balkan region?

On Nicaragua, the explanatory notes set out clearly some of the very serious allegations that have been made about the descent into repression and violence there, so it is right that we roll over these sanctions. The social security reforms announced in April 2018 triggered ongoing protests that have continued for nearly three years. The allegations are that by the end of 2019, at least 328 people had been killed, primarily by state security forces and pro-Government armed groups, and more than 2,000 others injured. There have been truly shocking allegations regarding mass graves, clandestine facilities, detention of political prisoners and attacks on members of the Catholic Church. The Government have also apparently banned the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights from the country and rejected the report of Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. That is deeply concerning, and we welcome these measures.



On cyber sanctions, clearly there is an increasing factor of threats to global security, our own national security, and our commercial security. Threats and attacks on our financial institutions, democracy and security have become very clear in recent years, and they will likely only increase. The EU’s first ever sanctions last year made this a vital defensive tool in our arsenal against cyber-attacks.

I understand that the targeted individuals include those from China working on Operation Cloud Hopper. They are alleged to have stolen intellectual property and sensitive commercial data over many years, targeting companies across six continents and sectors including banking, finance, government, aviation, space, satellite technology, manufacturing, medical, oil and gas, mining, communications, computer processing and defence. This is a huge range of measures that these hostile individuals are attempting to attack. I also understand that they target intelligence officers from the Russian general main intelligence directorate and, in April 2018, attempted to gain access to information systems of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. It is absolutely crucial that we work with our EU allies, the United States, our NATO allies and, of course, the Five Eyes community to take the most robust actions against those individuals involved with the Chinese and Russian regimes to ensure that they do not threaten our security or that of the globe.

In the miscellaneous amendments regulations, a whole series of measures are set out to clarify sanctions relating to Iran, Venezuela, Belarus, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Syria, Russia, Guinea-Bissau, the chemical weapons convention and many other aspects. Will the Minister be clear about whether they simply ensure the applicability and effectiveness of these measures, or expand or alter them in any way? One challenge in scrutinising these measures—I hope the Minister refers to this matter—is that sanctions are often complex, and rightly so, and we need to ensure that we understand the full intent of what the Government are trying to achieve with them.

The second set of miscellaneous regulations deal with the issues relating to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. I understand the Minister’s point that we do not want to see double prohibition and therefore a double licensing burden on individuals through those regulations. However, it is absolutely crucial that we ensure that there are no loopholes and no lack of oversight, so that individuals do not seek to exploit any gaps or administrative gaps. Will the Minister say a little bit more about what support is being provided to the overseas territories to ensure that they can apply the sanctions regimes, and that there is a commonality across the whole British family of the overseas territories to ensure that we have one approach? Unfortunately, we know that in the past regimes have been used, whether financially or otherwise, to escape scrutiny and transparency, not least in the light of the current investigations into governance in the British Virgin Islands. Indeed, I have supported the Government on their commission of inquiry there. It is absolutely crucial that we have assurances on that front.

On misappropriation, this applies mainly to individuals and entities related to Tunisia and Egypt in 2011 and Ukraine in 2014. Can the Minister further comment on how effective those have been? Will he confirm that the two persons and four entities added to the EU sanctions list in October 2020, related to the construction of bridge and railway tracks linking Russia to the illegally annexed Crimean peninsula via the Kerch Strait, will be included? Will the Government seek to work with our allies to target individuals who further seek to isolate Crimea from Ukraine? That is obviously critical.

On the unauthorised drilling activities in the eastern Mediterranean, again, we wholeheartedly support the rolling over of sanctions and welcome its extension by both the European Union and the UK Government. Unauthorised drilling activities in the eastern Mediterranean are in direct contravention of the sovereign rights of Cyprus, within its territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, and they threaten the process of reaching a delimitation agreement and a bizonal, bicommunal political settlement for the whole of Cyprus. We hope that the UK Government will continue to work with the EU to maintain our full solidarity with the Government of Cyprus and work on restrictive measures to prevent further violations of the rules-based order that governs our seas and oceans. That is an absolutely crucial set of rules and guidance to which we are one of the key parties, and it is crucial that we ensure that they are applied in relation to Cyprus.

Finally, let me make some broader points in relation to these measures today. The sanctions before us show the benefit of a collaborative international approach to sanctions, and one that has support from all parts of this House. The question remains why, with such long-standing and overwhelming evidence growing of systemic human rights abuses on an industrial scale against the Muslim Uyghur people and other minorities in China, with the attacks on the democracy and freedom of the people of Hong Kong and with the United States Government having already barred members of the Communist party of China from the US, we have not seen further designations of Magnitsky-style sanctions against officials of the Communist party of China.

We have repeatedly called on the Government to impose sanctions against senior officials and entities directly responsible for appalling human rights abuses in Xinjiang. We have pressed for that for months but no action has been taken, so I hope the Minister can assure us that such sanctions are under consideration and explain what discussions we have had about them with our allies.

Similarly, the Labour Opposition have consistently urged the Government to go further in their sanctions on the Myanmar military, including by targeting its business interests. I know that some of these regulations relate to previous sanctions on Myanmar. The Government failed to follow the recommendation made last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), the shadow Minister for Asia and the Pacific, on the basis that such sanctions could have a negative impact on foreign investment in the Myanmar economy. Not least given the events of the last few days, we believe that the Minister should move immediately to target military officials who are responsible for a brazen attack on the democratic rights of the Myanmar people, and support Magnitsky sanctions on individuals involved.

As shadow Minister for Africa, I welcome the targeted designations against senior individuals in the Zimbabwe Government who were involved in state-backed attacks on protesters in 2019 and violence in 2018. Will the Minister confirm that those sanctions are effective immediately? We are seeing significant violence and political repercussions elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, as I said in a Westminster Hall debate about the shocking events surrounding the #EndSARS movement and the massacres at the Lekki tollgate plaza and elsewhere. I hope that Ministers are giving serious consideration to the recommendation made in that debate of targeted measures against any individuals who were involved in such shocking attacks or repression of the Nigerian people, and I hope that Ministers are listening to the wealth of evidence out there from independent human rights organisations.

In Uganda in recent days, the presidential election has been marred by the continual arrests of Opposition Members and journalists, as well as by violence and human rights abuses. I have had some quite shocking evidence put to me. The Opposition leader was arrested multiple times and put under house arrest, with the military invading his home after the election, and there has been intimidation and attacks on journalists. It is alleged that the Uganda chief of police, Martin Okoth Ochola, stated:

“Yes, we shall beat you for your own sake to help you understand that you do not go there…I have no apology”.

What are the Government going to do to stand up for the rights and freedoms of the people of Uganda? What consideration has been given to targeted sanctions against any individual involved in the violations and repressions in Guinea and elsewhere, which are rightly being targeted? It is important that we have consistency.

We continue to see the horrific consequences of conflict in the Tigray region in Ethiopia. Hundreds have been killed, and thousands have fled to neighbouring Sudan. There is regional instability involving Eritrea and others, and a range of very serious allegations are being made about atrocities that have been committed. What assessment have the Government made of those atrocities and whether there are grounds for individual sanctions against any individual involved—from whatever side or whatever background in that conflict—who is responsible for violations of human rights or humanitarian law?

Finally, I hope that we will have an honest conversation about how a UK sanctions regime will work. The EU and the US work together co-operatively to secure strong applicability of measures, and the UK must be part of that process. Ultimately, as the Minister indicated, the strength of sanctions is dependent on a unified, agreed and consistently applied framework across multiple jurisdictions. If we veer from common positions—whether in Europe, across NATO or with our Atlantic allies—that will be of huge detriment. I hope the Government will give a firm commitment to acting in all these areas, and to ensuring consistency in the measures that the United Kingdom applies in our overseas territories and in working with our allies.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Alyn Smith. I understand that there may be some communication gremlins at work, Alyn, but if the link goes down we will go to audio.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important but technical point. I do not want to go into too much detail at the Dispatch Box; again, if he will forgive me, I will make sure that my officials take note of his point and that we write to him about it.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth asked whether there was a pause between the end of the transition period and now. I assure him that the regulations were laid in the course of 2019 and 2020, and came into force on 31 December, so there was no interruption in the sanctions regime.

Colleagues around the House have suggested examples of where our sanctions regime could be applied in the future. Rather than address each individually, I make the point that we have taken notice of those examples, in many of which very important, severe and concerning issues are at stake. It is the long-standing policy of the UK Government not to discuss future sanctions and future designations to prevent, for example, the flight of individuals or the hiding of funds that may be the target of our sanction regimes, but I can assure all Members that the examples they have raised will be taken into consideration.

[Stephen Doughty]

I understand what the Minister is saying. On a practical point, Members are regularly approached with very serious evidence, sometimes involving individuals who may have been committing atrocities. How can independent human rights organisations and others best input into the decision-making process, even if he does not want to pre-announce those designations?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I would not wish to imply that any method is precluded. The most traditional method is that individuals and NGOs contact the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I often read correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members across the House bringing their concerns to my attention. That is, of course, a well-established way of doing it. Once we are once again able to come together physically in this place, the tap on the shoulder in the Division Lobby, the Tea Room and the corridors is also a traditional way for right hon. and hon. Members to bring matters to our attention in a discreet way. I completely recognise that there are times when raising an issue on the Floor of the House can put individuals in greater danger. We are passionate about making the sanctions regime a success and a meaningful tool as a force in the world, and we are more than happy for Members across the House to bring their concerns to our attention.

Cyber-sanctions will be one of our key tools as an autonomous regime. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth highlighted that it will be an increasingly important part of the work we do. He also asked about the designations in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We have mirrored the EU structure and we have a framework in place. Although there are no designations in place at the moment, it is there as a very visible method to reinforce the importance we attach to peace, stability and prosperity, to be used at some point in the future if needs be.

I think almost every Member who spoke today raised the situation of the Uyghur Muslims and China. As the Foreign Secretary said, we have serious concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including the extrajudicial detention of over 1 million Uyghur Muslims and other minorities in political re-education camps, the systematic restrictions on Uyghur culture and the practice of Islam, and the extensive invasive surveillance targeting minorities. On 12 January, the Foreign Secretary announced a series of robust measures to help ensure that no British organisations—Government or private sector—deliberately or inadvertently profit from or contribute to human rights violations against the Uyghurs and other Muslims.

We have taken a leading international role in holding China to account for its human rights violations in Xinjiang. We led the first international joint statements on this issue at the UN General Assembly Third Committee in October 2019 and in June 2020 at the UN Human Rights Council. On 6 October 2020, alongside Germany, we brought together a total of 39 countries to express our grave concerns about the situation in Xinjiang in a joint statement at the UN General Assembly Third Committee. In addition, the Foreign Secretary raised Xinjiang directly with his Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister and State Councillor Wang Yi, on a number of occasions.

The situation in Myanmar has also been raised. We consider the recent election to be broadly representative, as do international observers, and we consider the National League for Democracy Government led by Aung Sang Suu Kyi to be the legitimate Government in Myanmar. We wholeheartedly condemn the coup d’état, the military seizure of power and the detention of the State Counsellor and other political and civil society leaders. The attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the recent elections are completely unacceptable.

[James Cleverly]

It would not be appropriate for me to speculate on involvement in what has happened in Myanmar, but the hon. Member will have seen that the Foreign Secretary has made a statement on this, in conjunction with others in the international community.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister is being very generous in taking interventions. A moment ago, in relation to China, he mentioned the importance of UK-based companies and their role, and he is now speaking about Myanmar. Will the Government look again at the situation where the UK’s Commonwealth Development Corporation has been investing in telecommunications companies in Myanmar that have been complying with Government-ordered repression and blockages of internet sites and others, which not only have potentially covered up atrocities against the Rohingya people, but could be being used now? Will he look again at that investment and whether it is appropriate in the current circumstances?

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I will ensure that I speak to my ministerial colleague in the other place, Lord Ahmad, about that matter.

The instruments we have been considering today demonstrate the range and scope of the situations in which we use sanctions. I am grateful to hon. Members across the House who have raised other circumstances where we might choose to do so. The instruments also demonstrate the outcomes that they are intended to achieve. From promoting respect for human rights to protecting our national security, sanctions are a vital part of a great many of our international strategies.

As I set out in the opening speech, the regulations provide the legal basis that enables us to carry out our independent sanctions policy within the framework of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act. Approval of these regulations will help to preserve our status as a global leader in this field. More than that, it will mean that we can stand with the EU and other international partners and act together to ensure that unacceptable behaviour—violation of human rights, violation of the rule of law, and threats to prosperity and security—do not go unchecked or unchallenged. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 608), dated 18 June 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 June, be approved.

UK Relations with Qatar

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate. He is a long-time advocate of the importance of the United Kingdom’s relationship with Qatar, not least in his ongoing role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group, although I will point out to him that Scotland’s premier university is, of course, St Andrews. [Laughter.]

I also thank the hon. Members for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), for Southend West (Sir David Amess), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), and the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), some of whom are no longer in their place, as well as the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith).

The hon. Member for Southend West is not in his place, but I would mention that normally after visits people are given a book, a cake or a bottle of wine. To get camels is quite extraordinary and something I shall not forget.

British relationships with Qatar go back more than 100 years, prior to, during and after the protectorate period of the early and mid-20th century. Potentially, that relationship has deep and significant diplomatic, security and economic benefits for the people of Qatar and the people of the UK—and, indeed, the people of Wales—as well as for the region. As an example of that partnership, I had the pleasure of studying alongside representatives of Qatar at the Royal College of Defence Studies a few years ago. We enjoy crucial co-operation, not least with respect to the Royal Air Force, and indeed other allied air forces, at the Al Udeid airbase.

It would be remiss of me not to reflect on the particularly special relationship between Qatar and Wales, not least through the air link with Qatar Airways, facilitated by the Welsh Government and our Economy Minister Ken Skates, which helped to connect Cardiff international airport directly to the world. That link is suspended because of the pandemic and low winter demand, but I hope that as things improve into the spring, we can re-establish that important route, given the aspirations we have heard about for Wales in relation to the 2022 World cup.

We also heard about a crucial link with the South Hook LNG terminal. I had the pleasure of visiting that facility, on a visit with the Welsh Affairs Committee when I was first elected. It was fascinating, given the critical role that the terminal plays in the diversity of our energy supply in the UK. Will the Minister reflect on how the relationship is developing, particularly ahead of next year’s commitments that we need to make on climate change and moving away from fossil fuels? How he perceives the transition we must make, which is being implemented in our country at such facilities and in Qatar, is critical.

We have heard lots about security and co-operation, and earlier this year the Royal Air Force and Qatar Emiri air force Typhoon squadron, No. 12 Squadron, commenced flying—the joint squadron that we heard about. We also heard about the acquisition by Qatar of the nine Hawk aircraft, which could lead to a new squadron. Given the ongoing threat posed by Daesh and other extremist groups in the immediate and near region, joint defence and security improvements are significant steps in protecting security in the region. That is reflected in our relationships in many other key locations, including the Duqm port in Oman and the Royal Navy facility we are developing there.

We have heard about crucial economic co-operation. We have an ever-deepening economic relationship, and since 2017 the UK has been one of the most significant, if not the most significant, destinations for Qatari investment—£35 billion-worth. Significant announcements were made at the Qatar-UK business forum in March 2017. The UK’s important wider diplomatic relationships with Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Egypt, among others, mean that it can play a critical role with international partners such as the United States, Kuwait and others to work to ease the ongoing diplomatic crisis, which has lasted three and a half years. I would appreciate—I am sure other Members have asked for this as well—an update on how the Minister sees the dispute, how he sees it being resolved and what role the UK Government are playing in facilitating candid conversation.

Given the complexity of the political and security situation in the Gulf and the wider middle east, we must always consider the implications of our engagement, particularly when it comes to military and security arrangements. There are attempts to influence policy and behaviour by the larger powers in the region, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, and we must always be conscious of that. Given the ongoing conflict in Yemen, for example, and the devastating humanitarian disaster, will the Minister give us his latest assessment of Qatar and other regional powers in relation to that conflict, and say what we are doing to resolve it? Indeed, what are the prospects for wider peace within the region, which is something I would hope for? We have seen a number of peace deals recently with Israel, so how does the Minister see Qatari-Israeli relationships?

This has been mentioned in a number of speeches, but it is critical today to recognise international Human Rights Day. Today is the anniversary of the adoption of the universal declaration of human rights on 10 December 1948. A former Labour MP and trade unionist, Charles Dukes, later Lord Dukeston, played a critical role in drafting that document, although tragically he died before its adoption. Britain was one of the key players that insisted that a moral principle on human rights was not enough, but that legal force and action were needed to defend basic human dignity worldwide. As I have said on many occasions, I regret that some of the Government’s recent actions have undermined those commitments on the global stage and caused the loss of our influence in some key UN human rights bodies and others. That is after a proud tradition of defending human rights and the rule of law globally under Governments of multiple colours in the last few decades.

On the comments of the hon. Member for Thurrock, it is not about being holier than thou. It is about accepting that, because the dignity and rights of human beings are universal, when we have frank and friendly relationships with countries such as Qatar, we use those relationships to be candid.

[Jim Shannon]

Surely one of the good things about having the relationship that the UK has with Qatar is that a good friend can be critical and constructive, and can say things in a way that the person can take on board. People do it with me; I do it with others. It can be constructive.

[Stephen Doughty]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point that I agree with.

The UK can never turn a blind eye to those challenges. Our relationship should be based on mutual respect for human rights, inclusive democracy and the rule of law. That particularly affects the issue of workers’ rights. We have heard about the World cup. Since Qatar bid successfully to stage the World cup, there have been serious, ongoing allegations of exploitation and labour abuse of millions of men and women, mostly from Asian and African countries, who migrated to Qatar for work. In 2013, a shocking report from the International Trade Union Confederation estimated that up to 1,200 people may have died, mainly poor migrant workers from Nepal and India. Indeed, Amnesty International reported in March that hundreds of migrant workers were rounded up and detained by police across Doha for the stated purpose of covid testing, only to find themselves forced on to planes and sent back to their country of origin. That is obviously of deep concern. What assessment has the Minister made of those allegations?

It is important to recognise that there have been substantial changes since the partnership with the ILO in 2017, such as the regulation of the employment of domestic workers, a partial abolition of the exit permit, a mandatory minimum wage, a Government-run shelter for survivors of abuse, and the significant labour reforms passed on 8 September to deal with the abusive kafala system. Those are all important, but there is still a significant distance to travel. Will the Minister comment on how he sees those developments progressing?

There are also significant concerns about the Qatari legal system. There are allegations of arbitrary travel bans and detentions, such as the cases of Najeeb Mohamed al-Nuaimi and Mohammed Yusuf al-Sulaiti. Have those been raised by the UK Government with counterparts in Doha?

We heard about the situation for women and girls. Unfortunately, despite some progress, there are still significant disadvantages and inequalities for women and girls in Qatar, including within marriages and within families, and, of course, with respect to domestic violence and shocking sexual violence. We have also heard about the situation for the LGBT+ community with the law as it stands. That has implications. I am a Welsh football fan. I am also a gay football fan. I would love to be able to travel to see Wales in a World cup, but I would have to make those considerations before I could make that sort of trip. I hope that we can ensure that the World cup is an open and welcoming environment for all fans, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity.

Indeed, there are minority groups within Qatar as well, including the al-Ghufran clan of the al-Murrah tribe, which have ongoing issues around statelessness. Can the Minister comment on that? There is also the situation regarding the death penalty. I accept that Qatar has not carried out death sentences in recent times, which is welcome, and a contrast to President Trump fast-forwarding executions in his remaining days in office—what an absolutely shocking situation. What progress have we made working with the Qatari Government on abolishing the death penalty?

We have also heard about the planned elections to the Shura Council. I hope that those go ahead. Similar promises have not been fulfilled in the past, so I hope they are this time. Can the Minister provide us with an update on that?

In an increasingly unstable world, with challenges of terrorism, conflict, climate change, and, of course, the pandemic and economic contraction, the UK’s relationships with countries around the world, particularly in the Gulf, are vital for the security and safety of the British people and the global community. Qatar can and should be a valued partner in the region, but close friendships come with the responsibility to be honest and frank, and to seek constructive change. I hope that the UK Government’s engagement with Qatar will continue to be productive and friendly in that vein.

Global Malnutrition: FCDO Role

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and his co-sponsors for securing such an important debate on such a crucial topic. I also commend the work of the all-party parliamentary group on these issues.

We have heard powerful and passionate speeches: from my hon. Friends the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra); and from the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), who spoke powerfully of her experiences; the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith); and from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always makes a powerful contribution on such issues. It is good to see him back. I also take this opportunity to commend the work of my shadow ministerial colleague, Lord Collins, who has done much to highlight these issues and has campaigned for global action.

Despite the huge advances we have seen in agriculture, food science and distribution, it should be a profound shame to the global community, including this country, that so many continue to go hungry and malnourished globally and in this country. We have heard today of the wider consequences for education, women and girls, and wider health.

As a Co-operative Member of Parliament, this is cause close to my heart. I am proud to support the Co-operative party’s Food Justice campaign. Since the covid-19 crisis hit, it has been estimated that 8 million people in the UK regularly have trouble putting food on the table and half a million people are using food banks. I know all too well the reality for those facing food poverty in my community, having volunteered with and supported a number of local food banks and delivery schemes for the most vulnerable.

My concern and that of the official Opposition for those going hungry does not end at our borders. I have seen with my own eyes the stark face of hunger and near-starvation globally with the World Food Programme and others. As we have heard, that picture is even more stark today, despite decades of progress in tackling hunger and malnutrition. As the Co-operative party Food Justice campaign states, the big picture is not that there is too little food; the problem is that people simply have far too little money. Such is the inequality in our economic system that profound structural change is fully required to address that. As we have heard, malnutrition is a leading cause of preventable death around the world, and millions are affected by food insecurity. Despite the fact that we live in a world of plenty, one in nine still go to bed every night hungry or undernourished. That is one of the reasons why the United Nations made food security one of the key sustainable goals—the Minister is wearing the badge today. As we celebrate UN Human Rights Day this Thursday, we must remember the key human right to food and adequate nutrition, as defined by the United Nations.

The United Nations reports that, after decades of steady decline, the number of people who suffer from hunger has been increasing slowly since 2015, even before the current crisis and the coming climate change emergency. It is estimated that, staggeringly, nearly 690 million people are hungry—8.9% of the world’s population, up by 10 million people in one year and nearly 60 million in five years. The world is not on track to achieve zero hunger by 2030, and if recent trends continue the number of people affected by hunger and malnutrition will surpass 840 million by 2030.

We have heard about many of the causes of that increase: man-made conflicts, climate change and economic downturns. In recent weeks, I have had conversations with humanitarian agencies operating in South Sudan and Ethiopia—two countries that exemplify those challenges; millions in South Sudan are on the brink of famine. I was having those conversations on the very day that the Government decided to slash the 0.7% commitment—what a stark contrast! The covid-19 pandemic could double that number, putting an additional 130 million people at risk of suffering acute hunger by the end of 2020. Of course, malnutrition is linked to economic inequality more widely. Rates of being underweight are 10 times higher in the poorest countries in the world than in the richest.

We have heard many examples illustrating the global situation, and I will touch on a few of them. It comes as no surprise that, following six years of disastrous civil war, Yemen faces the most acute malnutrition crisis in the world. The statistics are absolutely shocking: 12% of the population are in a critical emergency and 13 million people—many of them children—are in food insecurity. In South Sudan, 44% of the population are at the most critical phase, and more than 5 million people are affected. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, countries across the Sahel and north-east Nigeria are also affected. In Zimbabwe, 45% of the population—more than 4 million people—are at risk. In Haiti, the numbers facing food insecurity are nearing 4 million—40% of the population.

Too many turn away and forget. I see it as a particular tragedy that 36% of the population of Afghanistan—more than 11 million people—face food insecurity. We see food insecurity in more than one in 10 of the population of Burundi, Ethiopia, Eswatini, Guatemala, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Somalia, Uganda and Zambia. Of course, there is a conflict ongoing in Tigray in Ethiopia, and the situation across east Africa and the horn of Africa is exacerbated by the locust pandemic, flooding and the impact of conflict on crucial harvests.

To put it simply, this is exactly the time when the world’s poorest need more investment in food security and nutrition, not dangerous and life-threatening cuts. We need more, not less, work on the fundamentals of nutrition and food insecurity. As the “Global Nutrition Report” outlines, we need to build equitable, resilient and sustainable food systems. We need to renew and expand our nutrition commitments at key moments, such as the crucial Nutrition for Growth summit in Japan next year, leading the way for other countries.

We heard that, next week, Canada and Bangladesh are holding a virtual summit to launch Nutrition for Growth’s year of action. Will the Minister or one of her colleagues be attending, and will the UK Government make a pledge? Will there be a continuation of nutrition finance at current levels at least through to 2022, to ensure that we do not face a cliff edge at the end of 2021? In what other ways are the Government working with donors around the world to ensure that new commitments are made at that crucial summit in Japan next year?

As has been said many times, the UK can rightly be proud of its record, under multiple Governments of different colours over many decades, on combating malnutrition and preventable deaths and preventing hunger, but promises to tackle malnutrition and hunger in the future are meaningless given how easily manifesto commitments are tossed aside at the whim of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. Will the Minister confirm whether, as well as the plan to scrap the 0.7% Act, there is a plan to scrap the International Development Act 2002, which ensures that our funding is targeted at those who most need it and are at risk of malnutrition and hunger?

I have some specific questions for the Minister. DFID funded a multi-organisation programme in south-central Somalia to prevent the worst effects of disasters and food insecurity in a country where 28% of children under five are stunted. Will that programme continue to be funded, or will it be cut? The Pakistan food fortification programme is doing critical work to enhance nutrition among women—in particular, pregnant women. Will that continue after 2021, or will that nutritional support for the poorest and most vulnerable women be scrapped?

The World Food Programme appealed for £4.9 billion in 2020 to respond to the covid-19 pandemic, yet only half of that has been secured. The World Food Programme has had to implement prolonged ration cuts, including in refugee and internally displaced people’s camps across east Africa, including in South Sudan and Syria. The World Food Programme is clear that its partners do not have the funding required to prevent widespread hunger and famine. What is the UK Government response to that World Food Programme appeal at such a critical time? Will the Minister tell us how much funding for global food programmes has been cut last year and this year, and how much the Government plan to cut next year?

As I said, I have witnessed the impact of hunger and malnutrition at first hand. I have stood talking to villagers in Malawi as they queue for hours, waiting for a few basic bags of grain, while I am able to return to my comfortable hotel in the evening and eat well. I have seen impoverished street children in Kabul in Afghanistan. I have met women from Zimbabwe forced to sell themselves for sex so that they can feed their children. I have spoken to young people who have had their education disrupted or ended completely by having to return to till the fields for meagre returns, simply to help their family subsist. I have met families who have been ravaged by HIV/AIDS, through want of not only medicine but basic nutrition. I have met those whose lives have been torn apart by conflict originating in battles over scarce resources such as food and water, which are likely to be exacerbated as the climate emergency gathers place.

I put it to the Minister that as global Britain, we have a choice, we have a moral duty, and we have an imperative to act in our common interest to lay the foundations for mutually beneficial growth, education and health, and to remove the conditions that drive conflict and migration, with people fleeing the poverty, hunger and malnutrition that we have heard described so passionately in today’s debate. This is not the time to undermine our commitments on nutrition and hunger, at the very time when all that progress risks reversal.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)]

Let me start by saying that I am really grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for having secured this morning’s debate, and to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. I thank everyone for their recommendations and the thoughts they have shared this morning regarding our future approach, and I am deeply grateful to all those who are working tirelessly on this vital issue. I am reminded of the APPG meeting that we held earlier in the year. I am also reminded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) of the many visits that I have made to Africa over the years with Project Umubano, where I have seen at first hand some of the work that is taking place—not just through Government projects, but through civil society organisations and other groups—to tackle a range of issues, including hunger and malnutrition.

Tackling malnutrition continues to be of importance for this Government. Between April 2015 and March 2020, the UK Government reached more than 55 million young children, adolescent girls and women in the poorest countries with nutrition support. I was pleased to see that the Independent Commission for Aid Impact recently commended us on our work, and noted that the UK had undoubtedly underestimated its reach and impact. Preventing and treating malnutrition remains fundamental to achieving the Government’s commitment to end the preventable deaths of mothers, newborns and children by 2030.

Malnutrition is the underlying cause of almost half of all child deaths and one in five maternal deaths. Even before the coronavirus pandemic, progress to reduce malnutrition was already far too slow, particularly across Africa and south Asia. There is concrete evidence that the indirect effects of covid-19 are increasing malnutrition risk and threatening to reverse the gains that have been made. My Department, the FCDO, is closely monitoring the effect on nutrition. Many countries are reporting significant disruptions to key nutrition services, particularly breastfeeding support, delivery of vitamin A and iron-folate supplements, and treatment for acute malnutrition. Those disruptions will undermine the nutrition of the most vulnerable women and children in the world, and increase the number of people who die.

At the end of 2019, 135 million people in 55 countries and territories already faced acute food insecurity. Experts have estimated that as a result of the pandemic, acute malnutrition has increased by 14%, resulting in an additional 125,000 child deaths. Good nutrition is central to health, educational outcomes and poverty alleviation. A two-year-old who has received the basic nutrients they need in their early years is 10 times more likely to overcome the most life-threatening childhood diseases. They are also set to remain in school four years longer than their undernourished counterparts and to go on to earn more and have healthier lives and families. Every £1 invested to prevent malnutrition brings returns of £16 in increased productivity, so it is imperative that steps are taken to stop the current deterioration and to help countries get on track to achieve the 2030 target to end malnutrition in all its forms.

The UK Government are addressing this global challenge in three major ways. First, we are prioritising and continuing foreign investment in essential nutrition services, with a focus on countries experiencing the greatest shocks, including the impacts of covid-19. This includes highly cost-effective interventions such as breast-feeding support and acute malnutrition treatment in countries such as Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen and Ethiopia. We are also supporting programmes to deal with the chronic drivers of malnutrition in countries such as Zambia and Malawi. I personally made sure that our support to the Power of Nutrition financing facility was prioritised, so that this essential initiative can continue to save lives and avert malnutrition in countries such as Tanzania and Liberia.

Secondly, in September, the Foreign Secretary appointed the UK’s first special envoy for famine prevention, Nick Dyer. This is a clear signal that this Government are not prepared to look away as conflict, climate shock and the coronavirus pandemic put millions at risk of large-scale food insecurity and malnutrition. Alongside this, we launched a £119 million package of support to avert famine and food insecurity, which included a new five-year £30 million partnership with UNICEF to transform how acute malnutrition is prevented and treated. This will enable at least 4.3 million children each year in Africa and Asia to access essential nutrition services.

Thirdly, turning to Nutrition for Growth and the Canada event, to which many Members have referred to today, we remain firmly committed to working with the Government of Japan as they prepare for the next Nutrition for Growth summit. 2021 will be an important year for galvanising action to address malnutrition and I look forward to joining the Government of Canada at their event on 14 December to launch the Year of Nutrition for Growth. I am grateful for their leadership and support on this important issue. However, it is very clear that the scale of the global nutrition challenge needs a wide and diverse coalition of support. It cannot and should not only fall to Japan, Canada and the UK to deal with this global challenge. An essential part of our role is making the case to broaden the support base. It is incumbent on our partner Governments, the private sector and the multilateral system also to step forward. Nutrition investment is fantastic value for money, as many Members have highlighted.

The House will be aware of the difficult decision that the Government announced recently to reduce the aid budget to 0.5% of gross national income. I am conscious Members have raised this point during the debate. I have to say this was a difficult, but temporary decision. It is our intention to return to the 0.7% target as soon as the fiscal situation allows. In 2021, we will remain one of the most generous G7 donors, spending more than £10 billion to fight poverty, tackle climate change and improve global health. We will also do aid better across Government; even though the budget is smaller, we will deliver it with greater impact for every £1 that we spend. Some 93.5% of UK aid will come under FDCO leadership—

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not doubt the Minister’s personal commitment on these issues, which she has shown over many years. Obviously, what we have heard about the aid cut is deeply concerning. I have some doubts that the cut is temporary, particularly given the scrapping of the relevant legislation, but I asked the Minister a specific question about the International Development Act 2002. Will she rule out changes to that Act, because it is the focus in that Act that ensures that our aid is spent, by whatever Department, on the most crucial challenges, such as nutrition and hunger?

[Wendy Morton]

I know that the hon. Gentleman will seek to press me on this matter. I reiterate that we will remain one of the most generous G7 donors, even though we will spend 0.5 % of our GNI rather than the 0.7%, and as soon as the fiscal situation allows, we will revert to 0.7%. It is a temporary reduction.

I still have a bit of time left, so I want to respond to one or two more specific points raised by hon. Members. One was the link between covid-19 and nutrition. It is an important secondary impact for us all to be aware of. Malnourished people are likely to be more severely affected by covid-19, and the wider impacts of covid-19 are predicted to increase malnutrition, particularly across Africa and Asia. Over the past year, nutrition services have been prioritising many FCDO country programmes, including in Ethiopia, Somalia, Zambia and across the Sahel, to help to reduce the negative impacts of the pandemic. We have also supported Governments in the Scaling Up Nutrition movement to adapt their own responses.

Some Members raised the issue of vaccines in this debate, and I think it is important to recognise that malnourished children have been shown to have a less effective response to some, but not all, vaccines. Clearly, averting malnutrition is a sensible strategy to underpin any vaccination programme.

Girls’ education was mentioned by several Members, including the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). The UK is a global leader when it comes to girls’ education. Helping poor countries to provide 12 years of good-quality education, particularly for girls, is a top priority for this Government. We know that for children to learn they need the right nutrients, and that malnutrition disproportionately affects women and girls, preventing many girls from attending school and hindering the potential of those who do. I recall on some of my visits to Africa actually teaching in schools and visiting schools and seeing the difference that a child having had something to eat could make to their ability to learn.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) touched on partnership working. Let me assure him that we work with a range of partners to deliver our nutrition programmes. In countries such as Nigeria, we work very closely with faith-based groups to ensure that we reach those in need.

Official Development Assistance

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

Well, where to start with that?

The hon. Lady referred to a range of different issues. She referred to the UK’s work on disease and girls’ education. We entirely agree. These are total priorities, and that is why I set out the priorities—I appreciate that her response was written before she listened to what I said—so that I could give her and the House the reassurance that actually those are two areas that we will safeguard and prioritise. [Interruption.] No, we said we will safeguard those priorities.

The hon. Lady asked about climate change. As I made clear, our first priority will be to prioritise measures to tackle climate change and protect biodiversity, and we will maintain our commitment to double the international climate finance, which I agree is very important as we go into COP26.

The hon. Lady asked about our international partners. Of course our international partners, whether they are non-governmental organisations or the heads of the international organisations, will want as much generosity as possible. We understand that. I spoke to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the president of the World Bank, and Dr Tedros at the World Health Organisation yesterday. They understand the financial challenges and the health challenges, and they know that we will be a stalwart, leading member of the international community as a force for good in the world, notwithstanding the pressure that we and many others will now face.

The hon. Lady asked about the legislation. We will bring that forward in due course. Obviously we want to make sure that it is as well prepared and carefully thought through as possible. [Interruption.] She says that we do not have to. On the one hand, she has said that we are breaking the law and changing our mind on the law—[Interruption.] It is very clear under the legislation. She should go and check—

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is temporary.

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman says that it is temporary. That is not what the legislation says: he should go and look at it very carefully. [Interruption.] Well, he has not got this quite right. We have taken advice very carefully on this, and it is very clear that if we cannot see a path back to 0.7% in the foreseeable, immediate future, and we cannot plan for that, then the legislation would require us to change it. We would almost certainly face legal challenge if we do not very carefully follow it.

On the hon. Lady’s question about the 0.7%, it will still apply this year.

The hon. Lady criticises the Government for the choices that we have had to make in the face of a global pandemic and a financial emergency. It is not clear to me what choices Labour would make or that she would make. [Interruption.] Was she suggesting that we cut the money—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

The truth is that, in this spending review, the Labour party is defined by its total inertia in the face of the difficult decisions we have had to make. I am afraid that that gives it very little credibility when it comes to the SR.

When it comes to 0.7%, the House should recall that the Labour party has history on this. Members across the House, particularly the more long-standing ones, will remember that it was a Labour Government under Harold Wilson back in 1974—the year I was born—who first set the target of 0.7%. In the 46 years since—the whole of my lifetime—no Labour Government have ever hit 0.7%; not in a single year.

The hon. Lady talked in hyperbolic language about the damage that we will do with a shift to 0.5% and a £10 billion ODA budget. May I remind her that in the 13 years of the last Labour Government, not only did they never once hit 0.7% in any year—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) does not like it. I will come to him in a second. The last Labour Government only ever hit 0.5% in two years out of 13.

The House need not take my word for it. The shadow Africa Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, was a Spad in DFID under the last Labour Government—

[Stephen Doughty]

And it went up.

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman says that it went up. That Government spent, on average, 0.36% of GNI on ODA. With a record like that, the hon. Gentleman, rather than chuntering from a sedentary position, should stay quiet on this subject. On the Government Benches, with our record, we will take no lectures from the Labour party when it comes to ODA.

Covid-19: Freedom of Religion or Belief

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Rosindell. I thank everybody who has made a contribution to the debate today. There have been some strong and powerful contributions.

I particularly commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate, alongside others. Although he is sadly absent today, he has always been a steadfast defender in this House of the right to religious freedoms. I also thank the hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Glasgow East (David Linden) for leading the debate today and for their contributions. I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and I commend the Bishop of Truro’s report on the persecution of Christians that was referenced in the recent debate.

As a Christian myself, I was drawn last night to the words of the Gospel of Matthew about our responsibilities to the poor and the persecuted, particularly at this time:

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’”

This is a most pertinent debate to have today, as we begin to understand the impacts of the Chancellor’s regretful breaking of the Conservative party’s manifesto promise and the commitment shared across this House, including by Members present, to 0.7% for international aid. The decision will have an impact on our work on crucial international issues, such as our work to protect freedom of religion or belief, and, more broadly, to support faith-based organisations and other non-religious but deeply ethically principled organisations in their work responding to the covid-19 pandemic and standing up for development, human rights and justice more broadly.

The hon. Member for Congleton particularly mentioned the situation for girls and for those persecuted around the world. We should reflect on the words of Malala Yousafzai, who was herself a victim of extremists in the Pakistan Taliban, who said this morning that she is deeply disappointed at the abandonment of the 0.7% target when a generation of girls are leaning on that support.

I spent yesterday speaking with a number of faith-based organisations and faith leaders working in South Sudan and Ethiopia. Their warnings were stark about the threats to peace, human rights and development in those two countries, with which we have had strong partnerships. They warned of famine, atrocities and disaster, on top of the impacts that covid-19 was already having on their communities.

I am sorry to say that it has been a deeply disappointing few months from the Government on these issues. Abolishing the Department for International Development already risked undermining UK leadership on freedom of religion and belief. As we know from a similar debate a few weeks back, the Prime Minister’s own special envoy on freedom of religion and belief, the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), resigned over the Government’s planned intention to break international law. Members do not have to take my word or the hon. Gentleman’s word for this. Earlier this year, the now former Minister of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Baroness Sugg, responded to a debate in the other place on freedom of religion and belief. She rightly and proudly listed the work of the Department for International Development with the John Bunyan fund, which had funded an Institute of Development Studies-led programme on building religious freedoms. She said DFID had a director-level champion on those issues and was working in Rohingya refugee camps, and in many more instances besides, and that

“prioritising freedom of religion or belief can save lives and prevent humanitarian disasters before they emerge.”

She also said that

“withdrawal of our overseas aid will obviously affect the persecuted minorities and the very poor, whom we are aiming to help.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 February 2020; Vol. 801, c. 1878.]

Ministers from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have spent the last month refusing to be drawn into discussing any specific spending commitments. Now we have had the Chancellor’s announcement, can the Minister tell us today which of the programmes supporting human rights, specifically on freedom of religion and belief, will be funded in the years ahead, and which will be cut? Beyond that, what role does the Minister see for faith-based organisations and other organisations of no religious principle but with deep ethical principles in our global development and human rights efforts?

Faith and religious communities have on the whole responded with responsibility, care and compassion to the pandemic at home and abroad. Responding to the Bishop of Winchester on 11 November, Baroness Sugg said faith groups

“have been incredible in their response to Covid-19. They are among the first to respond and can play an effective role in bringing about the behaviour change essential to slowing the spread of Covid and reducing infection and illness.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 1025.]

Across the Anglican communion—I declare an interest as a member of the Church in Wales—the impact of covid-19 on church life, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger), has been of the same order in the UK, with impacts on church buildings, the suspension of public worship, impacts on rites of passage, gatherings and so on. There has also been an impact on clergy. I know that will be felt by the leaders in many other faiths around the world. There is increased burn-out and stress as they seek to respond to the needs of their communities.

I have had some difficult conversations in my constituency with churches and other faith organisations, but—the hon. Member for Wakefield made some sensible points on this—there is a stark difference between what we see in this country and what we see abroad, from the wider threat of violence to the use of blasphemy laws. In many other countries, covid-19 restrictions have regrettably been manipulated to oppress religious minorities. Just a few weeks ago, in this place, we heard powerful examples of the persecution of Christians. That concern has been expressed by groups such as Open Doors and Christian Solidarity Worldwide. We have also seen antisemitism at the heart of many of the conspiracy theories about covid-19 in this country and abroad

In China, as we have heard, there is an ongoing attack on religious minorities by the Communist regime, including against Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, and other religious and non-religious minorities. Catholic bishops have disappeared. Temples, statues, mosques and churches have been destroyed under the Government’s direction. The Uyghur Muslim population is facing a monstrous Government-co-ordinated programme of police surveillance, enforced re-education, disappearances, internment and mass detention. We have even heard reports of forced sterilisation. Of course, 1 million Uyghur Muslims may have been living in camps since April 2017. The risks of that in relation to covid-19 are obvious.

The situation in India was mentioned, where Muslims are demonised by wild conspiracy theories that blame them for the spread of covid-19. Members of some Islamic movements were quarantined despite not having been at risk or having symptoms. In Pakistan, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for Glasgow East and for Wakefield, Christian and Hindu communities were denied food aid by organisations that stated that relief materials were only for members of a majority faith. We have seen attacks and discrimination against the Hazara minority and baseless allegations against them for being involved in the spread of coronavirus. The longstanding persecution of the Ahmadi population has continued in Pakistan and elsewhere.

Where prejudice existed before the pandemic, it has also had a significant impact on testing and tracing. In South Korea, where an outbreak occurred among members of one particular church, other members refrained from testing to avoid discrimination because they are seen as heretical by other Protestant South Korean churches. The Sufi religious community is persecuted in Iran. In Sri Lanka, the Muslim community’s rights on burial practices have been suppressed. The pandemic has affected rights and freedoms of the non-religious, too. Humanists International made some powerful points about the impact on the humanist movement, and the impact of lockdown on those being forced into religious practices when they hold no such religion and the impact that has had on them and their communities.

Labour stands firmly by our international human rights obligations, including on freedom of religion or belief. Everyone has the right to freedom of through, conscience and religion. The necessary restrictions in the UK because of the coronavirus pandemic have meant difficult times around Easter, Ramadan, the Jewish high holidays and Diwali. People are now thinking about how they might celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah in limited circumstances. We all face challenges, but in far too many places globally, necessary limitations have been superseded by discriminatory and oppressive measures, using public health to cover up persecution and the whipping up of hatred.

Like many others in this debate, I am a person of faith. My Christian beliefs very much underpin why I went into the humanitarian development sector before I came into this place. I want to return briefly to the point about the 0.7% commitment. I could not agree more with the Most Reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who described the move yesterday as “shameful and wrong.” I am reassured by the many Conservative and other Members who had the courage to speak out yesterday and today. This is an issue that transcends party politics. It is about right and wrong, and it is about Britain’s national interests.

It matters to this debate, too, because when we talk about a global Britain standing up for freedom of religion and belief and getting behind the incredible efforts of organisations of religious faith and non-religious principle—whether that is directly combating persecution, supporting persecuted communities or supporting communities with the material needs of those affected by conflict, gross poverty, inequality and now covid-19—it cannot just be about words.

Christians often turn to the story of the good Samaritan, but I am reminded of the words of Christ himself in the gospel of Mark, recounting the parable of the widow’s mite. He says:

“He sat down opposite the treasury and observed how the crowd put money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow also came and put in two small coins worth a few cents. Calling his disciples to himself, he said to them, “Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood.”

That is the example set by many faith and non-religious organisations worldwide. As a country, we cannot just be a fairweather friend to the persecuted and the poor when we have plenty. Britain is better than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Adams]

I understand where the hon. Member is coming from. This is a bigger point. This is not something that needs to be rushed. There will be a replacement, but by no means are we stepping back from our commitment to this role. We know how crucial it is for liaison with the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. However, the hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I cannot give a commitment on whether the appointment will be made this side of Christmas, however welcome that would be.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire is a long-time champion for freedom of religion or belief. He rightly highlighted a wide range of countries where there are serious concerns about the ability to worship freely. We will always condemn any form of discrimination. We will always raise our concerns directly with the countries. He focused on China and the Uyghur population. We are deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Xinjiang. We all know about the so-called re-education camps. Our diplomats have visited Xinjiang periodically to observe that situation, because first-hand access is not easy.

We have repeatedly taken an international role in holding China to account on the issue, including statements at the UN Human Rights Council in June and in the UN Third Committee last October. At the time, the UK was the only country to have led a joint statement at the UN. On 6 October, the UK and 38 other countries made a statement at the UN Third Committee in New York, expressing our deep concern about the situation in Xinjiang, including the mass detention of Uyghurs. This reflects our diplomatic leadership internationally, including the personal involvement of the Foreign Secretary, in raising the issue with a wide range of partners.

On 25 September, we devoted our item 4 national statement to human rights issues in China at the UN Human Rights Council. That was only the second time the UK has dedicated its national statement to a single country—the first time was in 2018, on Russia, following the Salisbury poisonings. In July, the Foreign Secretary raised Xinjiang directly with his Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister and State Councillor Wang Yi. I raised my concerns directly with the Chinese ambassador in March.

As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) spoke eloquently on a subject that is very close to his heart. His experience of the discrimination that he has suffered as an Ahmadi Muslim makes him uniquely placed to comment on these injustices. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) said, we all look forward to being able to worship to some degree in the UK after 2 December, in all places of worship. Collective worship is clearly preferable to services via Zoom, but that is a step in the right direction at least.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes also talked about his personal experience in Iraq. The suffering of Christians and many other groups in Iraq is a matter of serious concern. We are firmly committed to protecting members of religious minorities in Iraq and providing assistance on the basis of need, irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity. We have committed £261 million in humanitarian support to Iraq since 2014, which will provide a vital lifeline of food, shelter, medical care and clean water for the most vulnerable, including the Yazidi and Christian minorities. We have also contributed £23.15 million to the UN development programme funding facility for stabilisation, which works to restore vital services across liberated areas of Iraq, and is heavily committed to areas that are home to minority communities—principally, and historically, those are Christian areas.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) brings great experience in this area to his role as Opposition spokesman, and it is always good to see him across the Chamber in these debates. He rightly raised the issue of the reduction of the development assistance budget from 0.7% to 0.5%, but the pandemic has had a huge and severe impact on our economy, which has fallen to the worst levels in 300 years. That has forced us to take an incredibly tough decision to spend 0.5% of our national income on global poverty reduction next year, rather than the usual 0.7%. That was a very difficult decision to make, but it is a temporary one. We must protect the economy during the pandemic, but we intend to return to 0.7% as soon as possible.

Of course, we remain one of the most generous G7 donors: proportionately, we will spend more than the United States, Japan, Canada or Italy. In real terms, that means more than £10 billion to fight poverty, improve global health and achieve our UN sustainable development goals.

[Stephen Doughty]

I take the Minister’s sincerity, but those are political choices that the Government have made in breach of their own commitments. A lot of organisations, particularly those working on the crucial issues that we have debated, want some of the granular detail on which programmes will be cut, suspended, changed or altered. The Foreign Secretary just mentioned in the main Chamber that there will be another review over the next couple of months. When can we expect detail and confirmation of funding for the critical programmes that we have discussed?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman is right to ask. All aid will be focused on seven global challenges where we can make the most difference: covid and global health security; girls’ education; science, research and technology; conflict resolution; humanitarian preparedness and response; trade and economic development; and, of course, climate change and biodiversity. The Foreign Secretary will decide the allocation of aid to other Departments in line with those objectives. All the projects will be assessed through a new management process, led by the Foreign Secretary with input from Ministers about their geographic and departmental responsibilities. That will be laid out, although I hate to use this term, in due course. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Foreign Secretary’s commitment on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister has made that point, and the Foreign Secretary tried to do the same earlier. When they resort to such personal points, it reflects a Government in wider difficulties. The reality is that in 1997, ODA was at something like 0.21%, and by the end of the Labour Government it had come close to 0.6%. There was a steady increase throughout the period after the Thatcher Government, the Pergau dam scandal and many other things.

Rightly—and I have credited them for it—David Cameron, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and others stuck with the commitments and the increases, because there was cross-party consensus. It is a great regret that the Government, and the Chancellor in particular, have chosen to break that consensus. It is deeply regretted by many on the Minister’s side of the House, as he knows.

[Nigel Adams]

It is regretted right across the ministerial team, but such measures have been forced on us by the pandemic. It is a temporary measure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) made clear, Ethiopia has been a relative success story lately, but there is a real danger for the people of Ethiopia and he has highlighted the risks of spillover to Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea, which will be very damaging not only for people in the region, but for wider equities. As I say, I have spoken to regional leaders. I will speak to the Deputy Prime Minister of Ethiopia soon. Of course, we will be engaging with the Americans. I was in Berlin talking with the E3 and our European colleagues. We have expressed our concern, and we are doing everything we can to bring peace and a de-escalation of the conflict.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The war and famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s are seared into the memories of the British people and the world, and yet again we are on the brink of another tragedy for the people of that wonderful country: hundreds of civilians hacked to death, tens of thousands of refugees, hundreds of thousands cut off from assistance, women and children caught in the violence between rebels and a Government now threatening to shell a city. So can the Foreign Secretary say why it has taken until today for the United Nations Security Council to meet on this? What more are we doing to secure humanitarian corridors and access for independent human rights monitors? Does he not agree that this is another reason why it would be the wrong time to cut our 0.7% commitment to humanitarian assistance?

[Dominic Raab]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s horror at some of the reports of the civilian casualties. We take this incredibly seriously, energetically and actively at the United Nations. Let me reassure him that UK funding is already helping those in urgent need of assistance. In Ethiopia specifically, the UK funds the World Food Programme, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF and the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Nigeria: Sanctions Regime

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for introducing the petition today and all hon. Members for their incredibly powerful and passionate contributions on a crucial issue. I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), for his comments, and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Nigeria, my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who has done so much to speak out on the atrocities and, long before they happened, on the wider SARS movement and the brutality that it has exposed.

We have heard incredibly powerful speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), for West Ham (Ms Brown), for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) and for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), and indeed the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith). As has been pointed out, other hon. Members would have been here who have been speaking out equally powerfully on the issue.

I also thank the more than 200,000 individuals who have signed the petition and its creators, which includes many significant signatures from the Nigerian diaspora in the UK and many others who share deep concerns about what is happening in Nigeria and about wider human rights abuses around the world. This is not a country that will turn a blind eye when such atrocities happen. The scenes we have witnessed and the reports that have come out of Nigeria of the response by the police and the army against protesters in the #EndSARS movement have shocked us all.

We have heard from colleagues about the events of 20 October, when it appears a group of #EndSARS protesters were fired upon by members of the Nigerian army at the Lekki tollgate plaza, after the CCTV was taken down and the lights were turned off. That resulted in tragic deaths and injuries. I spoke to those who had been in the vicinity of those incidents, who saw and witnessed first hand the brutality meted out by SARS and those attempting to defend them. I can tell you, Mr Gray, that they were shocking testimonies. Many of us have witnessed the video footage and pictures of the events, which are absolutely horrific.

Despite having denied it for over a month, the Nigerian army has been forced to admit at the judicial panel inquiry that soldiers were deployed to the tollgate protest with both blank and live ammunition. As many hon. Members have pointed out, some of those protesters are still in detention today, and many others have had financial restrictions on them and other actions taken against them. I would be interested to know what assessment the Minister has made of the situation of those who were involved in those protests.

As hon. Members have explained, this massacre and the other atrocities that we have seen are part of a picture of brutality that has gone on over a number of years—extraordinary brutality and violations by the Special Anti-Robbery Squad, known as SARS. The report from Amnesty International documented 82 cases of human rights violations between January 2017 and May 2020, including various methods of torture against detainees such as hanging, mock execution, beating, punching and kicking, burning with cigarettes, waterboarding, near-asphyxiation with plastic bags, forcing victims into stressful bodily positions, sexual violence and rape.

That is a shocking record of behaviour, yet few of those cases have been investigated and hardly any officers have been brought to justice on credible accounts of torture and other ill-treatment. The authorities have promised investigations, but often they have not occurred. The Federal Government of Nigeria have repeatedly promised to reform SARS but have failed to do so. The recent protests originate not only in that record of brutality, but in other documented incidents across the country, in Delta and Oyo states. In recent days, I have received reports of extra-judicial killings, allegedly by the Nigerian army in Oyigbo in Rivers state. What assessment has the Minister made of the most recent reports? This is still carrying on after the shocking events we saw just a few weeks ago.

The violent repression of protesters in Nigeria is unacceptable and has rightly garnered international condemnation. President-elect Biden has called on the Nigerian Government to end the violent crackdown. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has said that Nigerians’ right to protest peacefully needs to be guaranteed and that police brutality needs to stop. The official Opposition absolutely agree with that sentiment. The violent crackdown on these protests must end and there must be accountability for those responsible for such brutality and loss of life.

The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), have made it clear that the UK must act as a force for good in the world, in line with our international partners and multinational organisations, whether the United Nations, the African Union, the UN Human Rights Council or others, to encourage and strongly advocate for the end of violence in Nigeria, to end police brutality in Nigeria and, crucially, to call for independent investigations into these violations by Nigerian policing, security and military forces. It would be better if we had confidence in the systems of investigation within Nigeria, but the ongoing failure and the record of the Nigerian Government in dealing with SARS underlines why many people do not have faith in that process. That is why independent investigations will be crucial.

The petition refers specifically to sanctions. The official Opposition welcome the Foreign Secretary’s establishment of a Magnitsky-style sanctions regime, which we have been calling for since 2018, to allow for targeted sanctions based on attacks on human rights, and to enable us to target the wider network of perpetrators, including all of those who facilitate, incite, promote or support such crimes. That extends beyond state officials to non-state actors, as well.

At that time, the Foreign Secretary told us in the House that those sanctions would be used to target

“those with blood on their hands.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 663.]

It is clear that individuals do have blood on their hands in relation to the activities of SARS and these atrocities over the past few months. Given the allegations against members of SARS and the growing evidence of the atrocities that were committed, we urge the UK Government to use their full investigative capacity, including by drawing on the evidence provided by independent human rights organisations in Nigeria and elsewhere, to identify individuals responsible for those atrocities and, if appropriate, designate them for sanctions under our Magnitsky regime. We cannot stand by in the face of such wilful perpetration of human rights violations and killings. Not least given our close political, economic and security relationship with Nigeria, we cannot be a disinterested or unconnected party.

I turn now to the UK’s role in relation to SARS. We have heard about this from a number of hon. Members in the debate. Despite initially denying it, the Minister for Africa has admitted that through the conflict, stability and security fund in Nigeria, SARS members were trained as part of the Nigeria policing programme and that the UK Government have been involved in training of members of SARS, despite that happening during a time when there were ongoing public, well-known allegations of extrajudicial executions, extortion, torture and rape by this unit. I am sorry to say that although this is shocking, it is not an entirely unexpected revelation to me. It is also not surprising—I have the review of the programme here—that this programme was led by the Foreign Office rather than the Department for International Development.

UK support for security and justice reform in countries around the world can have positive impacts, but what is absolutely obvious is that in a growing number of cases, it is not clear what impact we are having or whether, in the worst cases, we are actually supporting agencies that have a role in committing atrocities or human rights violations. What we are discussing today is just one example. Whether it is this example, the ongoing supplying of arms to the Saudi Arabian Government for use in the Yemen crisis or the training of the special investigation unit in Bahrain, which has been complicit in the torture of prisoners—of course, that country uses the death penalty—the UK Government are having to repeatedly come and justify their involvement with organisations and institutions that appear to breach our own standards, let alone international law and human rights.

Can the Minister tell me whether she has considered suspending support and training for such programmes for Nigerian security, military and justice institutions until she is absolutely satisfied that they are not supporting individuals and organisations that have been implicated in these atrocities, and will the Government commit to a review of the effectiveness of OSJA—overseas security and justice assistance—projects? It was extraordinary to find, while reading the summary, that the programme was listed as scoring an A and an A in 2018-19 and to read that the risk was only medium. That sounds completely out of kilter with the facts that we have heard today and have been hearing for many years.

Looking beyond Nigeria, given the deeply concerning news coming from locations across Africa in recent weeks, what measures are the Government taking to protect human rights across the continent and to tackle those responsible, whether it is those responsible for atrocities in Ethiopia, those who are involved in suppressing the democratic process in Tanzania and Uganda, or whoever? We cannot have impunity for those causing or carrying out atrocities or war crimes, whatever their role or status, whether that is official or unofficial—whether they are official Government forces, official military forces, or irregular forces who are acting on behalf of different groups, and whether those are central Government, regional government or rebel groups. It does not matter who they are—we cannot have impunity for the people who are carrying out these atrocities.

It appears to be a double irony that we are seeing support for wrong programmes like this one when the Government, we hear, are proposing to cut the right programmes; they are proposing to cut the 0.7% target and support to development and peace programmes across the world. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that that will not happen.

From the Black Lives Matter movement in the USA to the #EndSARS movement in Nigeria, it is clear that any democratic Government must respond to the needs first and foremost of their citizens in providing policing and security. They must be accountable to the people they serve and not hold themselves above the law. They must defend the law and conduct themselves in line with the principles and values that underpin it. We stand on the side of all those in Nigeria who are calling for peace, for democracy and for the rule of law to be upheld. Killings must end. Democracy and the rule of law must prevail, and the UK should be a partner to all Nigerians seeking peace, justice and development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I am grateful to the hon. Lady. As I said, I am sure the Minister for Africa will be following the debate. I will make a few more comments about sanctions, but if the hon. Lady will bear with me, I want to answer a few more of the other questions.

I reiterate that it is long-standing practice not to speculate on our future sanctions, as it could reduce the impact of those sanctions. Right hon. and hon. Members raised the issue of corruption; I agree that tackling corruption in Nigeria is absolutely critical to the country’s prosperity and security, and to reducing poverty and inequality. Work is under way to consider how a global corruption sanctions regime could be added to the Government’s armoury.

Several Members gave examples of intimidation that had been highlighted to them, and we are aware that some protestors have reported facing intimidation. The British high commissioner in Abuja continues to raise our concerns about the intimidation of civil society groups and peaceful protestors with the Nigerian Government, because it does not build an environment for groups and protestors to come forward and help build genuine accountability. I can assure Members that we are aware that some protestors face intimidation.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and others raised the matter of UK aid. I reassure her that no UK taxpayers’ money goes directly to the Nigerian Government. The UK provides assistance to Nigeria to meet immediate humanitarian needs, and to address long-term structural issues. While I am on the topic of aid, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) tried to tempt me to speak about the Government’s commitment to spending 0.7% of GDP on aid. As I am sure he anticipated, I will not speculate ahead of any spending review.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Minister elaborate on that? I appreciate that she is not the Minister for Africa, and that she will be less familiar with the specific programmes, but it was very clear in the Minister for Africa’s letter to us that the UK Government were funding training programmes that directly involved SARS, despite the allegations. Does she not believe there is a problem with our wider security and justice assistance programmes across the world? There is example after example of their impact being questioned, or, worse still, of our being implicated in some way when organisations do not uphold our standards.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts part of my notes, as I will touch a little more on the SARS programme, and I hope to give a bit more detail about work that we are doing and supporting.

Before I come to that, I want to note quickly that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet raised the issue of the persecution of Christians. That is another important topic, and I reassure her that we have made clear to the Nigerian authorities, at the highest levels, the importance of protecting civilians, including Christians, and human rights for all Nigerians.

I will now discuss the Special Anti-Robbery Squad. The UK supports police and justice reform in Nigeria. All assistance is compliant with our human rights obligations and values. Through our Nigeria policing programme, funded by the conflict, stability and security fund, which ended in March 2020, federal Special Anti-Robbery Squad officers participated in training on amended Nigerian police guidance designed to improve human rights, training on public finance, and community policing workshops. The Nigeria policing programme was part of our security and justice reform programme, which is working to help to deliver a criminal justice system that will better protect the human rights of all Nigerians.

As a result of the programme, relationships between communities and the police improved in four states. Trust was built, with communities and the police working together to resolve safety and security issues. The Nigerian police force’s recent adoption of the community policing framework developed by the Nigeria policing programme is a positive outcome. Our support to civil society was instrumental in the President recently passing the Nigeria Police Act 2020, which provides for greater citizen protections and improved police training, which we believe will benefit Nigerians.

Through the CSSF-funded north-east public safety and security programme, part of which is delivered jointly with USAID, radio equipment was issued to Borno police command. That was for police units working to improve local security, and to counter violent extremist organisations, including Boko Haram and Islamic State in West Africa. Borno police command distributed free radios to the local FSARS unit, which were returned after FSARS was disbanded. The north-east public safety and security programme is part of our north-east Africa security, conflict and stabilisation programme, working to help to stabilise one of Nigeria’s poorest and most fragile regions, affected by Boko Haram and Islamic State in West Africa.

I acknowledge and understand the strength of feeling in the House and among the public. The UK and Nigeria have a long and close relationship that extends beyond our Governments to our people, especially through the British Nigerian diaspora community, which contributes so much to this country. The diaspora was also mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. The UK is home to more than 200,000 members of the Nigerian diaspora, who contribute much to the country. As I am sure you will be aware, Mr Gray, my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), was the first British Nigerian Minister.

As to communications and engagement with the diaspora, on 18 November my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa led a virtual business roundtable with members of the Nigerian diaspora business community, the better to understand challenges in increasing trade and investment between the UK and Nigeria. That roundtable was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who is the UK trade envoy to Nigeria, and the British deputy high commissioner in Lagos. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet asked about requesting a meeting with the Minister for Africa, and it would perhaps be wrong of me to commit him to that, but I can certainly pass on her request.

This Government will continue to press the Nigerian Government and their security services to uphold human rights and the rule of law; to investigate all incidents of brutality, illegal detentions and the use of excessive force; and to hold those responsible to account. We will closely monitor the judicial panels of inquiry, and will continue to advocate for investigations of police brutality. The Government will consider their options as the panels’ work progresses.

The Government will also continue to work with the Nigerian Government, and international and civil society partners, to improve the accountability and transparency of the Nigerian police, for the benefit of all Nigerians.

Sexual Abuse and Exploitation

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for securing this crucial debate. It was a real pleasure to serve with her on the Select Committee on International Development, and I commend that Committee and its excellent Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), as well as her predecessor, Stephen Twigg, for their consistent and relentless attention—particularly that of the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire—to these crucial issues over many years. We have heard some excellent contributions today, from the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall)—I know he said he was not distinguished, but I thought it was an excellent and absolutely sincerely meant contribution—as well as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), and of course the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as well as the spokesperson for the SNP, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson).

Consistent attention to this issue is absolutely crucial, because as we have heard today, simply investigating and responding in a reactive way to each incident in an isolated fashion is not, and will never be, good enough. I regret to say that these issues have been and are systemic, and not just in the aid sector, among international aid agencies, or among private sector contractors working in international development or peacekeeping. They are systemic in all contexts where vulnerable people exist and, crucially, where there are power imbalances, not least gender-based power imbalances, imbalances that exist between donors and recipients, or those that exist between so-called protectors and the people they are supposed to be protecting.

This is a crucial point because, as many of the Members who have spoken today have said, we have to recognise that predators and abusers actively seek out the vulnerable, and usually manipulate and take advantage of such systemic, specific power imbalances. We know this from decades of our own experiences, domestically as well as internationally. Whether in parts of the Church, among celebrities, in sport, in the media or with looked-after children, we have seen those tactics used to find and exploit victims. It is absolutely right, as has been done, to highlight environments of conflict, extreme poverty and distress as particularly vulnerable environments with vulnerable individuals, and I have seen those myself around the world.

I think of one of the first visits I paid to Malawi when working in the NGO sector, when I went to a World Food Programme feeding station that was responding to food shortages in southern Malawi. I was 25 years old. I was taken to a village where hundreds of people were queuing up to receive their assistance from the WFP, yet they had to wait for their food while I was sat on a chair, in front of everybody else sitting in the dust, for me to give a speech. I was taken aback by that, but unfortunately it is the culture that exists: me as a 25-year-old white man, sitting there on a chair while other people sat in the dust, waiting for their food. In those first experiences, it was clear to me how such a situation can turn into one where there is abuse, imbalance and misuse of power.

The resolute and consistent cross-party action of the International Development Committee in pursuing these issues underpins the Committee’s value and why, in scrutinising our official development assistance, our role in these matters is crucial. I hope the Committee or one similar will continue to scrutinise our official development assistance budget. I urge the Minister to consider that point, which has had support from across the House.

I have seen NGOs, peacekeepers and others do huge good around the world but, I am sorry to say, this is not the first time I have had to speak on these issues. As a former staff member of Oxfam and World Vision, I was utterly horrified by what I heard was happening in Haiti. At the time, I said:

“I completely share the horror and revulsion about the revelations…I feel let down. I know that many current Oxfam staff members feel completely let down, too, both by the actions of those who carried out these terrible incidents and by the failure to deal with them”.—[Official Report, 20 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 53.]

That is absolutely crucial.

Some years later, I was horrified to hear of another example. I will not read out the name of the individual at the heart of the allegations in Haiti, not least because I cannot pronounce it, but also because he does not need his name repeated. I spoke to a former civil servant for the Department for International Development, who said that that man was well known throughout the sector and had moved from agency to agency before ending up in that situation with Oxfam.

That is a tragedy, because organisations mentioned today such as World Vision have led work internationally on these matters. One of the first issues I worked with them on was tackling the loophole that allowed paedophiles to travel to south-east Asia to abuse children. World Vision did incredible work on that, so it is a great tragedy for me that some of the organisations that have led in the fight to protect vulnerable people find these problems in their own organisations.

We have heard many excellent contributions and recommendations today, which I wholeheartedly endorse on behalf of the official Opposition. I hope the Minister will explain what progress has been made on working globally with others to implement the recommendations that the Committee has made in its several reports, not least in the light of new allegations in relation to the DRC.

I want to highlight a particular recommendation that the IDC made in its report. We cannot have platitudes, as the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire said. It is simply not good enough. The Committee said:

“Whilst we recognise the value of developing best practice guidance and ensuring that it is widely available, we learned from our initial SEA inquiry that the existence of good guidance is only valuable to the extent that it is followed in practice.”

The Committee also warned:

“Voluntary self-regulation of safeguarding standards allows failures on sexual exploitation and abuse to slip through the cracks: in our view the case for an independent ombudsman remains strong.”

I want to highlight another area from the IDC report, which said:

“Protection for whistle-blowers should form part of all frameworks for reporting sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment of both beneficiaries and staff.”

Insufficient attention is being given to these issues. The protection of whistleblowers and the freedom of people to come forward and speak out on these issues is crucial. I wonder how the Minister will respond to those key points.

The New Humanitarian and Thomson Reuters Foundation recently exposed shocking reports regarding the DRC. They have horrified hon. Members across the House. The investigation was released in September and refers to 51 women who have accused aid workers of sexual exploitation and abuse during the Ebola response in the DRC. Organisations involved, allegedly, include the World Health Organisation, World Vision, UNICEF, the Alliance for International Medical Action, Oxfam, Médecins sans Frontières and the International Organization for Migration.

Many of those accounts were backed up by aid agency drivers and local NGO workers, exposing multiple incidents of alleged abuse. Given the number and similarity of the accounts from the women in the eastern city of Beni—one of the epicentres of Ebola—it is likely that the abuse was widespread, but the investigation only focused on Beni. We have to accept that in these situations we are not getting the full picture of what has been going on.

I do not need to further detail the stories, which have already been mentioned, of women being plied with drinks, ambushed in offices and hospitals, some being locked in rooms by men who promised jobs or threatened to fire them if they did not comply, and, of course, forced pregnancies as a result of abuse. It is absolutely extraordinary. Men from countries including Belgium, Burkina Faso, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, France and Guinea were named as abusers. Many women were afraid to come forward and speak out about their experiences.

With the shadow International Development Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), I wrote to the agencies implicated in that response. I am sorry to say that we have not heard back from many of them, but I commend Oxfam and World Vision for responding very robustly and rapidly. Oxfam pointed out in particular that it has now joined the inter-agency misconduct disclosure scheme, which aims to highlight perpetrators. But again I have to ask: is that working? We see these platitudes in these letters; we see these warm words. What is the reality on the ground? These examples keep happening again and again. We asked some extremely tough questions and we will continue to do so.

Oxfam also pointed out research that it was doing that had uncovered a range of aspects that prevent people from coming forward. It pointed out the issues of people not being willing to speak in certain country contexts, preferences about the way to report incidents and so on. I am not sure that that needs research. A lot of it is absolute common sense and blatantly obvious to anybody who has looked at these examples. We need to see less dilly-dallying and dithering by agencies. We need to see action on the ground, and the Government need to be supporting that.

I have some questions for the Minister, not least about the response of the FCDO itself. People may think that the issue is just aid agencies, peacekeepers or others, but unfortunately Governments and international agencies are also involved. Therefore, although we welcome the change to the new FCDO terms and conditions and human resources policies to ensure that sexual relationships between staff and beneficiaries and partners are considered unacceptable and will be treated as potential gross misconduct by the FCDO, can the Minster explain who is included within that category of staff and whether the same treatment will be applied to all staff who are contracted to Departments that are spending UK official development assistance? Is the FCDO providing adequate funding to ensure that safeguarding is at the heart of our ODA programmes with agencies, contractors and multilateral agencies?

Then there is armed forces training. The Minister will know that we give a lot of support to, for example, peacekeepers. Will he explain what is happening on that and how we are ensuring adherence to the highest standards in those we are training? Given that there needs to be co-ordination, will he also explain how the Government are looking at monitoring individuals as they move between organisations? That is one of the crucial issues that have come to light.

In conclusion, we must accept that there is a systemic problem. We have to drive systemic and cultural change within organisations in the sector and ensure that there is prevention, not just reaction.

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) not just for securing this debate, but for having been a passionate voice in this area for a considerable time, and long before this issue was in the broader public consciousness. I will go through some of the UK Government’s actions, but I think that one reason why we find ourselves in a leadership position on this is that there have been voices such as my hon. Friend’s, which have been making this case for far longer than others.

I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for her chairmanship of the Select Committee and to the members of that Committee, who have pursued with alacrity this incredibly important issue.

I thank all those hon. Members who have made contributions today. We all joke about how Westminster Hall is a much better debating place than the main Chamber of the House of Commons, but with this debate it has been shown once again that, sometimes, difficult and challenging questions can be asked in good faith, with a desire to bring about positive change, rather than just as a short-term political stick to beat each other with across the aisle. I will respond as much as I can to the points that have been made.

Sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment are completely unacceptable, especially in a sector whose purpose is to help the most vulnerable. My concern sometimes is that these stories are used by critics of ODA spending as an excuse for the UK to withdraw from its international commitments. I will say this clearly: no, it is a reason for us to work harder to address these issues rather than to step away from them.

In 2018, the aid sector’s failure to tackle sexual exploitation came into sharp relief, and it has been raised by a number of people today. We now realise—indeed, it is very clear—that it was far from an isolated incident. That has been reinforced today. The hon. Member for Rotherham highlighted the pernicious cocktail of attitudes that are, unfortunately, if not prevalent, then certainly not isolated in the aid sector, and that lead some people to believe that the people they are meant to be helping are somehow lesser than them.

The case is therefore clear: we must do more to drive up safeguarding standards, and we must act quickly. Inevitably, there will be a power and wealth imbalance in the sector that we are talking about, but we must never accept the inevitability that that should lead to sexual exploitation and abuse.

Since 2018, the UK has spearheaded work to tackle sexual misconduct in the aid sector. We launched a £10 million multi-year initiative with Interpol to identify and stop perpetrators from working in the sector and, with a UK commitment of £10 million, we developed tools to help organisations with their safeguarding. The misconduct disclosure scheme, backed by the UK, prevented at least 36 people with track records of sexual misconduct from being employed by NGOs in 2019. Following wide consultation, we have designed a new multi-million-pound programme of support to survivors and victims. We will provide further details in 2021.

Yet cases still occur far too frequently, as we have seen in the horrific reports from the DRC, and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is absolutely right that we have to assume that that is just the tip of the iceberg. Reporting has increased—which perversely, I suppose, is a positive sign. We know that there has been, as is often the case with sexual abuse, huge under-reporting, both domestically and internationally.

Tackling sexual misconduct is a priority for the UK Government. In September, we published our first aid sector safeguarding strategy. The UK is pushing for change in three areas. First is sector-wide change. The UK is providing global leadership to tackle the issue from the top. The Prime Minister is a member of the UN Secretary General’s Circle of Leadership to prevent and end sexual exploitation and abuse. The UK brings together donors, NGOs, the United Nations and others to ensure a coherent international approach. We adhere to global standards on sexual misconduct and require our partners to do the same. In 2019, we helped to write and signed the OECD Development Assistance Committee’s recommendations on the issue, with 29 other DAC members.

Organisational change within the UK Government is our second priority; that means a comprehensive look at our own cultures and practices. We have sent a clear message out to all staff that safeguarding is a responsibility for everybody, and we hope that will alleviate the challenge of where victims have to report to their abusers. At the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, that includes a clear statement in our staff code of conduct that sexual exploitation and abuse based on power imbalances, including paying for sex—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire is absolutely right; I will not describe that as prostitution, because that is not what it is: it is abuse—is gross misconduct. All ODA-spending Departments have signed up to that language.

Thirdly, we want to raise standards among those who deliver UK programmes overseas. We have strengthened our due diligence assessments and aligned the safeguarding language in our multilateral funding agreements with other donors, clearly setting out our collective expectations. Reaching our standards can be a challenge for some small grass-roots organisations, so the UK has created the resource and support hub to help build up their safeguarding capabilities. Some might argue that we are not tough enough and should cut funding to all organisations where any allegations occur. Our concern is that that would introduce a perverse incentive to cover up the very issues that we need to see more of.

[Stephen Doughty]

Does that apply to all staff in all Departments spending ODA and all those contracted to those Departments? That is important.

[James Cleverly]

On the language that I used about gross misconduct, the t’s and c’s of the FCDO can apply only to the FCDO, but all ODA-spending Government Departments have agreed with the wording underpinning that. All Departments signed up to the language in the UK strategy. It is about trying to ensure that we do not introduce perverse incentives that would drive the issue back underground, as we have seen before.

Regrettably, safeguarding cases will still occur from time to time. However, we collectively work to reduce the risk, and we will not tolerate a lack of effort or action. That is why we require our partners to do all they reasonably can to prevent sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment and to respond sensitively to the victims and robustly within organisations. We will not fund partners who do not reach those standards.

Let me end by saying that more needs to be done. Sadly, we have heard that this issue will be an enduring challenge, and the UK will remain at the forefront. We will place the rights, needs and wishes of victims and survivors and the centre of our response. The UK strategy sets out four commitments for all Departments delivering UK aid: we will continue to provide global leadership; we will hold ourselves to the same high standards that we expect of others; we will transform the aid sector so that everybody is treated with dignity and respect; and we will hold ourselves to account through transparent reporting and external scrutiny. Safeguarding against sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment is everybody’s responsibility, and the Government will continue to lead the way on this issue.

Persecution of Christians and Freedom of Religion or Belief

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank everybody for their incredibly strong and passionate contributions, as I would expect from the Members present. I commend the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for securing the debate and for his work as the Prime Minister’s special envoy. I am sorry that he had to resign.

I thank the Bishop of Truro for his work and all the organisations, many of which have been named, for the work they have done in bringing attention to many of these instances of persecution, particularly against Christians, around the world. I declare an interest as a Christian, and as someone who worked previously with Open Doors and a number of other organisations to highlight such cases, including working with Christians on the Left within my own party.

It is, of course, disappointing that it has been a month since the resignation of the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham and the Government are yet to appoint a special envoy. I hope that the Minister can give us some news on that, because it is crucial and relates to at least four of the recommendations in the report of the Bishop of Truro. It is vital that we get that work back up and going, but I know that the hon. Member will continue to be a strong voice on these issues.

The Bishop of Truro said very clearly at the start of the report:

“Across the globe…Christians are being bullied, arrested, jailed, expelled and executed. Christianity is by most calculations the most persecuted religion of modern times. Yet Western politicians until now have been reluctant to speak out in support of Christians in peril.”

We have seen the opposite today. Many of us are willing to speak out on these issues, and I know that many others across the House are not afraid to do so either and that they will also continue to speak up for those facing persecution.

Sadly, there are far too many circumstances to mention them all, but I will focus on a number. I will start by talking specifically about the situation for Christians in Nigeria, but given the events overnight, with your leave, Mr Hollobone, I will briefly mention the shocking scenes of brutality and violence at the Lekki toll plaza. I hope that the Minister can share the Government’s response to those shocking scenes, not least because of our strong relationship with Nigeria and its military and security forces. Amnesty has said that there is credible evidence of excessive use of force leading to the deaths of protesters. The action has been condemned by the former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, so can the Minister tell us whether he and his colleagues will be urgently speaking with the Nigerian high commissioner and their counterparts in the Nigerian Foreign Ministry? It is crucial that they do so, given the horrific scenes overnight.

I want to draw attention particularly to the concerns in Nigeria for Christians. We have heard from Christian Solidarity Worldwide of 50,000 Christians in southern Kaduna state having to flee violence. We have heard from a number of Members, including through the work of the APPG and the report that was mentioned, of the violence between Fulani herders and settled farming communities. In 2019, 1,000 Christians were killed. The International Crisis Group has pointed to more than 300,000 people being displaced, and, of course, Nigerian human rights organisations have also been speaking out, saying that in 2015 up to 12,000 Christians were killed, with 350 deaths in just the first two months of 2020.

There is also alarming persecution of religious minorities by elements of the Nigerian state. There have been arbitrary arrests of both Christian and humanist figures. For example, Professor Solomon Musa Tarfa was detained in Kano state, as was Mubarak Bala from the Nigerian Humanist Association, whose case I have raised regularly with the Minister for Africa, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge).

There are many other worrying circumstances beyond those in Nigeria. We have heard about the circumstances of the Muslim Rohingya minority and the persecution they face at the hands of the Myanmar authorities, and about the situation for Rohingya Christians. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) talked about that. There are approximately 1,500 Rohingya Christians and they report that they have faced threats and violence in camps, including an attack in January this year when a group of men attacked 22 Christian families, vandalised homes, looted personal property and smashed up a makeshift church and school.

Of course, we have also seen attacks across the middle east. We have heard about the persecution of Coptic Christians and the destruction of churches in Egypt. In Algeria, there is an ongoing campaign of church closures against the Protestant Church of Algeria, which serves the Berber population—13 churches have been closed over the past three years. We have heard about the situation in Iran, where only Shi’a Muslims are allowed to hold key political positions and there are continued attacks on people who change or renounce their religious beliefs. Atheists, too, are affected. Many people whose religious beliefs differ from those of the extraordinarily repressive regime in Iran are at risk of arbitrary detention, torture and the death penalty.

We have also heard about the situation in Pakistan, where the blasphemy laws still carry the mandatory death penalty and violate fundamental rights to the freedom of expression, thought, conscience and religion. Rather than moving away from such violations, there has been an increase in attacks. Many individual cases are of deep concern to the organisations that have been speaking out so powerfully on behalf of individuals, individual churches and others who have been affected.

There is also the situation in Sri Lanka, with the horrific attacks that we have just been marking. Those scenes have utterly shocked the world. The situation has also worsened in places that have not been drawing attention, such as Mozambique. The situation in the north of that country is deeply worrying. Recently, monks in the north of the country have been forced to flee across the border to Tanzania after an attack on their monastery in the district of Cabo Delgado. The deeply worrying rise in extremism there is, I am afraid to say, little noticed by the outside world.

There are so many examples of religious persecution that it is difficult to do them justice. Organisations have been highlighting such atrocities. I mentioned the specific Christian organisations, but organisations such Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and many others have also been leading efforts to draw attention to the circumstances and to urge Governments around the world to act.

We heard about the situation with the Chinese Communist party, including from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), who is no longer in his place. The so-called sanitisation of religion, which was pushed by Premier Li at the National People’s Congress in March 2018, has been on show and affects not only Christians but other religious minorities, including Muslims, Buddhists and Taoists, and other non-religious groups. The week-long disappearance of Catholic Bishop Shao Zhumin from Guangzhou diocese in Zhejiang was also very worrying. There is also the case of Guo Xijin in Fujian province. When he fled state custody and went into hiding, having refused to bring his church under the Government-run Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, the authorities in the diocese of Mindong began closing churches, installing surveillance cameras and evicting priests who refused to be brought under official control.

Of course, we cannot have this debate without mentioning the absolutely shameful and disturbing atrocities that are being perpetrated against the Uyghur population in Xinjiang, who are facing a monstrous Government-co-ordinated programme of police surveillance, enforced re-education, disappearances, internment and mass detention. There are even shocking reports of forced sterilisation.

Having heard the powerful contributions made today, I want to put a few questions to the Minister. Obviously, the Government have enacted a number of the Bishop of Truro’s recommendations, including the launching of the John Bunyan fund, but there have been cuts to official development assistance budgets as a result of the decline in gross national income, and we believe there are cuts that go beyond that. Can the Minister confirm what cuts will be happening and to what extent there will be ongoing funding for the John Bunyan fund and work will continue to focus on tackling persecution of religious minorities? Will specific country programmes in some of the contexts that we have mentioned today face the chop? I certainly hope not, because that work is absolutely vital.

Recommendation 18 in the Bishop of Truro’s report talks about a standard FORB scale of persecution. It would be incredibly beneficial to have a clear scale of escalation, so that the Government and others could formulate common approaches in advocating for persecuted Christians, especially in the very worst cases and situations.

The freedom and right to believe and worship as one chooses, without threat of attack or sanction, whether legal, financial, social or physical, is one of the most fundamental rights that we hold, but too often and in too many places, we see both governmental and non-governmental actors using division, hatred, sectarianism and persecution to advance their agendas, bolster support and eradicate dissent and freedom of thought. The UK must stand boldly against such egregious abuse of human rights. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government will be expanding their work to uphold freedom of religion and belief for all.

These freedoms are guaranteed by some of our most fundamental human rights global commitments: article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, article 18 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, and the declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief. There is of course a crucial UN special rapporteur on these issues. There is the UN Human Rights Council. Perhaps the Minister can say how we will be using our seat on the UN Human Rights Council to push these agendas forward.

Of course, all of this is underpinned by the UK remaining committed to the very highest standards of human rights, to the rule of law and to a proactive role in global human rights bodies. I am sorry to say that we have seen some drawing back from that in recent years. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that that will not be the case, that these programmes will continue to be funded and that he and his colleagues will continue to use their full diplomatic muscle for global Britain to advance the case of persecuted Christians worldwide.