Counter-Daesh Update

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for asking that question. He is right that unless we are able to demonstrate justice for these atrocities, we will not persuade people that as a world, we have sat up and taken notice of what has happened. The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), recently met Karim Khan of UNITAD, which is the United Nations investigation body, and we are strongly supporting its work. The UK strongly supported the international, impartial and independent mechanism, to ensure that we have a proper mechanism for investigating these people, and we brought forward Security Council resolution 2379, which sets up an independent investigatory body. It is none the less not easy. Finding evidence that can be traced back to an individual perpetrator in whichever part of the world is extremely challenging, but that does not mean that we should leave any stone unturned in this process.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Having given evidence in war crimes trials, it is my understanding that people charged with genocide or crimes against humanity should be brought to book in the country in which they have carried out their crimes. Will those who have carried out genocide against the Yazidis be tried in Iraq, or will the International Criminal Court have some responsibility for dealing with that matter?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is right; our first intention is that they should be tried in Iraq if it is possible to get justice for them in Iraq, and there is no reason why it should not be, with the new Government in Iraq. Of course, there are cases in which it is not possible for people to get justice in the country where the atrocity happened. That is when the ICC has a role, and that is why we support the ICC. It has a very important role to play internationally, despite a number of challenges that it currently faces.

Draft Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 General Committees

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The Kimberley process certification scheme was established in 2003. Although it is a great system and I totally support the draft regulations, we must not consider it perfect. The scheme is not perfect; blood diamonds are still used by various regimes for different reasons, as the hon. Member for Glenrothes outlined.

We should obviously continue with the process, but I was not sure whether the Minister was implying that we would not be able to buy stuff until we get this—will he respond to that? We cannot get diamonds into this country if we do not get the draft regulations through—is that right?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their comments and questions. Let me endeavour to answer them in turn.

I will respond first to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton, on the Opposition Front Bench. Among other things, if we were not a participant, others would not trade in rough diamonds with us, so we would be out of the trading system that has emerged on the back of the Kimberley process. Potentially, that could lead to a weakness in the policing of the trade in rough diamonds.

The cost would be the same as now. Likewise, the impact is unchanged, hence the absence of a need for an impact assessment. The point that I would make is that the draft regulations are simply the transposition of the EU-based regime to an autonomous UK one, so that we can participate autonomously. I suppose the parallel is with the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018: we used to do all sanctions with the EU, but now we will be able to do them on our own. The regulations are one of the changes necessary to adjust to us leaving the European Union.

In response to the hon. Member for Vauxhall, 82 countries are members, which include Zimbabwe. We are confident that our existing participant status will be embraced by the 81 as we reapply on a slightly different footing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree is absolutely right to emphasise again the importance of this regime in addressing some of the worst aspects of conflict and rapacious behaviour in war-torn areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham is also right that this is not a perfect regime, but it has been a successful and improving one, given what was there before, which was quite simply nothing.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes asked about influencing direction. We would remain a full participant, and would be so on our own, so inasmuch as we could influence direction in the past, we will still be able to do so in future. The draft regulations are a transposition of the regime—that is what such statutory instruments are for—which does not open up immediately any scope for adjusting, improving or amending, because that is not what the changes before us are intended to do.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again. May I ask whether, on 30 March—assuming that we leave on 29 March, as we will—Hatton Garden, say, will be able to import legal diamonds into the country? Is that what this is all about?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

There is a distinction between polished and rough diamonds—

[Bob Stewart]

I am sorry.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

So this is about a particular category of diamond. The draft regulations mean that if we were a participant, anything legal in the Kimberley process would include us in that process; if we do not pass them today, it would not.

Let me answer one more question put to me about the powers. The Kimberley process requires participating Governments to certify the origin of rough diamonds and to put in place effective controls to prevent conflict diamonds entering the supply chain. That is done through the Kimberley process certification scheme, of which we would be a part if the draft regulations go through. In the process, each international shipment of rough diamonds must be accompanied by a Kimberley process certificate relating to that specific shipment. In other words, the certificate is valid for one specific journey only. The certificates are issued by the exporting country’s Kimberley process authority, which has controls in place to verify that the shipments are conflict-free.

As I outlined in my opening speech, the draft regulations are crucial to our participation in the Kimberley process and, in turn, to our conflict prevention objectives and obligations. The instrument is fully consistent with the Prime Minister’s commitment to be a supportive member of the European Union until we leave, and it will ensure the UK’s continuous compliance with the scheme. It has the added advantage, Mr Evans, of making me a greater expert in rough trade than even you, sir. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his brave words, and I agree entirely, but that makes it all the more important that we continue to work with the international community. The UN is the obvious vehicle for doing that, but we recognise that the Russians would veto a Security Council resolution, so we are working to build a coalition of interests among many UN members, both those directly impacted and others who, if we do not deal with this now, could be impacted in the decades to come.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Everyone agrees that we should get Russia back within the provisions of the INF treaty. Intermediate range means up to 5,500 metres. Will the Minister confirm that the INF treaty does not include sea or air-launched missiles, which would be sad if it did?

[Mark Field]

I believe that is correct. If I am incorrect, I will correct it in writing to my hon. Friend, but I believe he is correct.

Journalists: International Protection

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am sorry that I was a bit late coming into the debate, although I was actually on time—we started early. I have two minutes, so I had better get on with it.

I will talk about the protection of journalists in conflict. Some 26 years ago, as the UN commander, I was sent to Bosnia by the British Government with the explicit instruction that I was not to protect journalists. I was not to look after them, I was not to sustain them, I was not to give them food and I was not to give them fuel. They were not my responsibility and I was to leave them alone.

The Ministry of Defence then accredited 102 journalists to my battalion. I thought that something was weird. Then, on 20 October 1992, I recovered the body of a BBC journalist who had been cut in half by an armour-piercing round. He was a dreadful mess. He was dead, of course, which I was very upset by. His name was Tihomir Tunuković. I brought him back and thought something was wrong. On 1 November, three more journalists were in my hospital. I thought, “This is actually wrong. I have been given rotten instructions here.” They were British journalists but, British or not, any journalist required my protection, so I changed the instructions.

I note that I have 33 seconds left, so I will say only one thing. The Geneva convention should have a new protocol—perhaps the Foreign Office could start that process—to protect journalists, because the Geneva conventions are actually the laws of war and conflict. Thank you, Mr Bailey. I am sorry that I screwed up my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The number of Members here despite the magnitude of events in the main Chamber just goes to show the high regard in which we hold international journalists. I do not have time to go through everybody’s contributions, but I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) on bringing the debate to the House and particularly on his proposals for a UN special representative on the safety of journalists. I think that proposal will garner cross-party support, and I will absolutely add my name to it. I studied media and journalism, and when I was at university I wanted to be a war correspondent—I held the likes of Kate Adie up as absolute stars. I did not realise that dream, but I did end up in another reasonably good job.

Over the holidays, I read Lindsey Hilsum’s book “In Extremis: The Life of War Correspondent Marie Colvin”. Her incredible life is depicted in a film that is about to come out, “A Private War”. The places that Marie reported on included Chechnya, Iraq, Israel and Palestine, Sri Lanka—where she was injured and lost an eye—Syria and Africa. She was, we believe, assassinated in Syria in 2012. She held Martha Gellhorn, who reported the rise of fascism in the 1930s, in high regard; Gellhorn was one of her heroes. The plight of female journalists is a particular issue. As we have seen in recent years, all international journalists are under threat and it is an increasingly dangerous time, but female journalists in particular have had terrible experiences.

In an address that Marie Colvin gave at St Bride’s church on Fleet Street when she returned from Afghanistan, she reflected on the injury suffered by a colleague who stepped on a landmine and had to have both legs amputated. She said:

“The expectation of that blast is the stuff of nightmares.”

I want to share with the House something else that she said:

“We always have to ask ourselves whether the level of risk is worth the story. What is bravery, and what is bravado?”

Lindsey Hilsum wrote about Marie’s determination to bear witness and its importance. She said that Marie was

“the champion of bearing witness so that even if no one stopped the wars, they could never say they had not known what was happening.”

That goes to the heart of the issue. Marie’s death, or assassination, in 2012 was a tragedy not only for her family and friends, but for journalism and the truth. Her ability to report and bear witness was vital.

Journalists are our eyes and ears on the international stage. They go where we cannot. They see what we cannot see. They hear what we cannot hear. That is particularly important for politicians. There is often a relationship of conflict between journalists and politicians, but we must hold them in the highest regard—indeed, cherish them—because their accounts help to direct our decisions about aid and about troops and intervention. Without them, we are blind to the great atrocities that, as we have heard, many Governments and regimes are visiting upon their own people and other nations.

If we do not protect international journalists, if we do not protect their integrity and their safety, we risk becoming detached and distanced. I want and hope to hear from the Minister what more we can do, particularly from a Foreign Office perspective, because as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad and consular services and assistance, I have interviewed a number of partners of those who have been incarcerated, including Richard Ratcliffe, the husband of Nazanin Zaghari, and Daniela, the wife of Matthew Hedges, who was studying in the United Arab Emirates. Their experiences are unbelievable. We must remember that academics and researchers are just as important as journalists. We must be able to protect them, and we must not fall foul of the trade relationships that we may have with countries coming above the diplomatic relationships that we have, in protecting journalists and others who in order to tell stories travel to places where we cannot go.

[Bob Stewart]

On a point of order, Mr Bailey. I am so sorry, but I was flustered when I spoke and I want to correct the record. Tihomir Tunuković, whose body I picked up, was killed on Sunday 1 November, not on 20 October. I hope that the record can be amended accordingly.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

I am sure that it can be, Mr Stewart. Thank you for that correction and, indeed, for the very interesting tale that you were able to tell us today.

Uganda: Democracy

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Dr Williams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Having seen that press coverage, I thought it right to ask what our legitimate interest is and to establish why our relationship is important and how Ugandan democracy impacts on that relationship. I hope to develop that argument as I progress through my speech.

Our relationship is one in which we have worked together, for example to respond to the refugee crisis from South Sudan. It is a relationship in which we trade with each other and in which the UK provides development assistance to the people of Uganda. As countries, we have shared goals and shared interests in those areas.

I also have a personal interest in Uganda. In 2006, I moved to Uganda, where I spent more than four years living and working in a rural part of the country in Kanungu district, next to the fantastically named Bwindi Impenetrable Forest. I worked as a doctor with local health workers and the local community to transform a small health centre into a fantastic, thriving hospital and community health programme. I did this without pay, as a Voluntary Service Overseas volunteer, and played my small part and used my skills to leave a sustainable healthcare system. In case anyone watching from outside wonders—I am sure a few people are watching—I no longer have a stake in Uganda, whether through financial interests or otherwise. I am, however, a friend of the country, and I have many Ugandan friends. I want to speak today in that spirit of friendship and as an equal partner.

Living for a long time in a different culture gives you particular insight. I learned to speak some of the language, Runyankole-Rukiga, although not very well, and I learned a lot about local cultures and beliefs. I saw many of the successes of President Museveni’s National Resistance Movement Government. I saw significant efforts to improve education, with the ambitious programme of universal education, which was really positive. I saw economic growth, albeit in a country with significant inequalities. Ugandans are slowly getting richer, which is a good thing too. I saw growth in infrastructure, the remarkable spread of mobile phones, improvements to road networks, and improvements to power. Those should help the future economy to grow and help everyone to become more prosperous.

I also saw things that did not work well, however. The Government-run health service, which failed to get the basics right, did not work well in the area that I lived in. Health worker morale was low and absenteeism was extremely high. There was a centrally run system to supply drugs, but a combination of underfunding, theft and bad planning meant that supplies often ran out. As people had little confidence in the institutions of government to deliver the healthcare that they needed, they had to take matters into their own hands. Patients went to private drug shops, while health workers took second jobs. The poorest people were left behind, getting no care and suffering devastating consequences. That failure of the Ugandan health service is not because of the people—there are many fantastic, talented Ugandan health workers—but because of the system, which relies on patronage and is, sadly, riddled with corruption and centralised decision making that leads to paralysis.

While living in Uganda, I also got to witness how the political process worked. Locally, I was introduced to GISOs—Government internal security officers—living in every community. Ostensibly, they are there to collect evidence of people trying to destabilise the country, but in practice that extends to any act of political opposition to the President. Alongside every local council leader sits a resident district commissioner—or RDC—the President’s own appointed person, who monitors everything happening in that district. That is done in the name of security, but RDCs are used to gather intelligence and stop political dissent.

I learned that the Internal Security Organisation is there to protect the President. Legitimate criticism of the policies of the President have been deliberately conflated with criticism of the state. The state has become personalised. Ugandans see that system for themselves—they do not need me to point it out. Some people know no different: this month, President Museveni will have been in power for 33 years. Three quarters of people in the country have never lived under a different leader. Ugandan people see that the institutions of their democracy are slowly being eroded.

First, the Government have closed down critical media outlets. There are credible reports that television stations were interrupted during the 2016 elections when results favouring the opposition were being reported. There are also credible reports that social media, including Facebook and Twitter, are shut down by the Government during sensitive times.

Secondly, the Government have used the military to attack Parliament. When MPs were debating the extension of presidential term limits, Parliament was attacked and MPs, including Betty Nambooze, were beaten by armed forces. Thirdly, there is evidence of serious human rights abuses, including serious and credible reports about a 2016 attack on the palace of King Charles Mumbere in Kasese, and the massacre of 150 civilians by Ugandan forces. According to those reports, the solider who led that attack has been promoted, and no independent investigation has taken place. I hope that the Minister will explain the Government’s position on that attack.

Fourthly, elections have been described, in diplomatic language, as

“short of being free and fair”.

Serious allegations have been made about the conduct of elections in Uganda over many years, but the most recent EU report on the 2016 presidential election made 30 recommendations that should be enacted before the next election in 2021. They include taking clear steps to differentiate the state from the ruling party and to strengthen the independence of the electoral commission, and systematic checks on the integrity of votes. As of March 2018, none of those EU recommendations had been implemented. There are credible stories of vote-rigging, with the police preventing access to “rigging houses”, and electoral bribery is common. Ugandan politicians routinely hand out money or gifts at election rallies.

The interference in elections does not happen only on the day of an election. I have friends who stood for elected office in Uganda. They were subjected to constant low-level intimidation. Police or soldiers were stationed outside their home, and they were followed. After they visited villages to talk to people, soldiers went to threaten those people with reprisals if they voted against the Government. Furthermore, radio stations, the main media in most areas, are owned by Government-backed politicians and report clearly biased information. Perhaps most disturbingly of all, people who engage with politics are subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention. The institutions that are supposed to protect democracy, the police and the military, are used to undermine it. Finally, the Public Order Management Act passed in 2013 has further diminished the political space, requiring police approval if three or more people want to gather to discuss political issues. What kind of democracy curtails politics in that way?

Many Ugandan opposition politicians have struggled bravely to use the democratic process to win power. I do not have time to mention them all, but I will draw attention to two such people. Kizza Besigye has stood for President on three occasions. He has been arrested, beaten and harassed so many times that he has lost count. I had the pleasure of meeting Dr Besigye when he visited our Parliament last year. His sacrifices in the pursuit of democracy in Uganda should be lauded.

I also want to mention Robert Kyagulanyi, also known as Bobi Wine. He is a young, charismatic musician with a large popular following. He was elected to the Ugandan Parliament at about the same time that I was elected to the UK Parliament. While I, in a friendly way, get to be critical of our Government without harassment, Bobi has been the target of totally undemocratic behaviour by his. In August last year, he and four other MPs were arrested by the military while campaigning for a by-election. His driver was shot dead, and he was severely beaten by soldiers before being brought to court on trumped-up charges that were later dropped. Bobi Wine was eventually handed over to the police and released, but that was just another example of the Ugandan Government using the military to prevent democratically elected politicians from doing their job.

Why are all such attacks on democracy important? They are important for the Ugandan people, the people who might one day want to see a different Government in their country. They have no hope of ever seeing a different Government if this one undermines democracy to cling on to power. The attacks are also important because of international standards and accountability. Uganda is a partner to our country in the United Nations, in the Commonwealth and, in multilateral relationships, through the European Union; and partners hold each other to international standards. The attacks are also important because they undermine the ability of the UK and the Ugandan people to work together on shared goals.

The attacks on democracy also allow a small group of people to retain power, a group of people who are illegally benefitting from that power and patronage. The corruption has meant that the UK’s Department for International Development has stopped direct budgetary support to the Government of Uganda. In 2012, €12 million was channelled out of the aid budgets from Ireland, Denmark and Norway directly into the bank accounts of officials working in the Prime Minister’s office. We now have to provide our UK support through private sector and non-governmental organisations. We cannot pretend that that is a good thing—it is always better to work with Governments—but, to be honest, we know that if want to help the people of Uganda, we cannot give money to their current Government.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When I worked in aid in Uganda, we ensured that the aid got to the people by delivering it ourselves, refusing to give it to any officials. We took it directly to the villagers or the people who required it. I know that is difficult, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees.

[Dr Williams]

It is a terrible state of affairs. If we want development to be sustainable, that is much more likely to happen through a democratically elected Government and by building the institutions within a country. Some people are so desperate, however, that they still need aid, and we cannot trust their Government to give that aid. I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting that point.

Transparency International ranks Uganda as 151st out of 180 countries in the world for corruption. That is worse than Kenya, which is 143rd, much worse than Tanzania at 107th or Ethiopia at 103rd, while Rwanda is ranked as high as 48th. In 2013, Transparency International stated:

“Corruption in Uganda is widespread and seen as one of the greatest obstacles to the country’s economic development as well as to the provision of quality public services....Such corruption challenges are exacerbated by weak law enforcement, which fuels a culture of impunity, particularly with regards to high-ranking officials involved in corruption schemes.”

The attacks on democracy, as well as undermining our shared development objectives, are important because Britain wants to provide military support to the country of Uganda. We want Uganda to have secure borders and to contribute to peace in Somalia. We cannot have that, however, unless we have confidence in Uganda’s democracy and rule of law. I ask the Minister: when there are questions about the Ugandan army’s use of cluster bombs in South Sudan, when the army is used to enter Parliament and, allegedly, to massacre people in Kasese, or when special forces are used to hunt down and arrest politicians campaigning in a by-election, how can we be sure that the people whom we are training engage only in peacekeeping activities?

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

No one understands compassion better than the hon. Gentleman, who articulates it so clearly in the House on so many occasions.

We still think it best to handle this issue in a bilateral way, which is how we deal with a number of dual nationality cases. We do have contact with the system in Iran, and we are continuing to pursue that. We are very disappointed by the present circumstances, and we are deeply concerned about the humanitarian aspects—both Nazanin’s separation from her child and the current restrictions on medical care, which must be lifted as soon as possible. We will continue to press for that, using all our contacts bilaterally.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has implied that we may not be speaking to the people who make the decisions on Nazanin. Is he suggesting that other power brokers, such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, may well be the decision makers, and have we any contacts with them?

[Alistair Burt]

The authority structure in Iran is complex, as any study of it will show. I am absolutely certain that the messages that the British Government send, and our work through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tehran, get through to people, but it is not always possible for us to have contact with every part of that complex power system.

Yemen

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and his Select Committee on International Development for their sustained interest in Yemen; I also thank him for his personal commitment to making progress.

The monitoring mechanism is UN-authorised and will be reporting back to the UN. It is led by a Dutch general and the UN Secretary-General will be requested to report back weekly, so absolutely yes to that question. I raised the question of the airport with both delegations. We were hoping that we could get agreement to reopen Sana’a airport. There are essentially two international flights—I think to Egypt and Jordan—but the Government of Yemen wanted to insist that the international flights first went to Aden, which they control. The Houthis were reluctant to do that, so we were not able to reach an agreement, but it is very much the next step.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Allow me to concentrate on the corridor between Hodeidah and Sana’a, which will be 140 miles long, through very rough country. Whichever peacekeeping or monitoring force goes in has to be of the highest quality because, speaking from my own experience, that is one heck of a distance to monitor. And then, beyond Sana’a—or direct from the port—there will have to be corridors out to get aid, because this aid will not succeed unless the people who are hungry put it in their mouths. That is the crucial thing that we have got to achieve.

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and his own experience of peacekeeping in Bosnia informs his questions, as the whole House will have seen. We do have the commitment from both sides to clear that road of combatants, but we will not succeed unless there is enough trust between both sides actually to sustain it. We are taking this one step at a time. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a long way ahead to make this happen, but—to reassure him—the UN will be monitoring what happens very closely, and anyone who breaks this agreement will face the full wrath of the UN and the members of the Security Council.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

We are well aware of the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I can assure him that, should there be any issues in terms of action that the UK can take in this regard, it stands ready to do that, should the situation require our intervention.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I ask the Minister for Africa what diplomatic support the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can give to the English-speaking community in Cameroon, which is being quite widely oppressed at the moment?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important situation. I was in the Anglophone region of Cameroon earlier this year. We are following with great concern the reports we are hearing that the situation has not got any better since I visited. We are urging the President, who has recently been re-elected, to follow through on his assurance that he would engage in meaningful dialogue to address the concerns of the people living in that region.

Bahrain

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I straightforwardly declare an interest: I am vice-chair of the UK-Bahrain all-party parliamentary group. I am very fond of the place, because my connection with it goes back almost 50 years.

Formally, the British relationship with Bahrain dates to 1816, when we signed a treaty of friendship, which has fundamentally lasted since then. In fact, Bahrain remained under British protection until it was granted its independence in 1971, becoming a constitutional monarchy led by the same royal family that had signed the original 1816 agreement. In July 1969, I was posted as an officer of the first battalion, the Cheshire regiment, to Bahrain. Fifty years ago it was a very different place.

The country still maintains close security co-operation with the United Kingdom—a relationship cemented last year with the inauguration of the Royal Navy base at Mina Salman port. HMS Juffair, which is what it is called, is a vital part of our Gulf defence network, and it was largely paid for by Bahrain too. However, internal security in Bahrain is becoming more and more of a problem. Two years ago, when visiting the country, I was shown a large amount of arms and ammunition found by the Bahrain security services. The arms came from Iran, which is definitely stoking up as much trouble on the streets in Bahrain as possible—trouble that is often deadly. Bahrain is now a major target for Iranian subversion. That threat is ongoing and very real. We should not forget that.

Yet, in a region where human rights are often hugely ignored, I feel that Bahrain is, with British advice and assistance, trying its best to be as good as anywhere, even though some may argue that it is not doing so very well. It is true that Bahrain is a majority Shi’a Muslim country governed by a Sunni-led constitutional monarchy, but listening to my contacts in many different sectors of Bahrain society, I feel that the Government do their best to represent everyone who lives there, no matter what their religion or origin.

It is true that Bahrain has banned some opposition parties from standing in the election, but I think those parties advocated or supported violence. I can understand that. I do not think that we in the UK would take kindly to any political party that advocated violence standing in our general elections either.

I would highlight that women in Bahrain can vote, dress, worship and drive as and when they like. I have met quite a few Bahraini female MPs. Everyone—Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew or whatever—has freedom to worship the way they wish. That is pretty good when looking around the region, particularly at close neighbours such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Some 8,000 police and security personnel have now received British-sponsored human rights training, as have 100 members of the judicial and public prosecution services. As we have heard, there is now an independent special investigations unit and an ombudsman.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Would the hon. Gentleman accept that human rights groups have noted that torture investigations carried out by UK-trained investigators in Bahrain rely on forensic medical examinations performed by Bahraini Government doctors and that independent UK experts have assessed those examinations and have declared that they should be totally disregarded because they fail to comply with the UN’s basic minimum for standards for medical examinations?

[Bob Stewart]

I do not know the full detail of that, so I will not comment on the hon. Lady’s point.

The UK’s inspectorate of prisons is helping, working with the judiciary. Since 2011, the International Committee of the Red Cross has had access to the country’s prisons, which is very important. Video and audio recordings now routinely occur when prisoners are interviewed. Inspections of prison conditions are now normal and the recommendations of such reports are implemented to the best of their ability—I believe that is the case. I consider such changes a major step forward. I do not personally agree with capital punishment, but I do not live in Bahrain. Over the last 50 years, there have been only five cases where it has been imposed, for what the state considers to be heinous crimes, such as the murder of a policeman. I remind colleagues that the United States, our closest ally, also still has the death penalty.

Bahrain is actively seeking expert advice on human rights from the likes of the British Government. I think it is determined to show the world that such things matter to Bahrainis as much as they do anywhere else. The country is truly a friend and ally. It is continually threatened by Iran, which is just across the Gulf and has scant regard for human rights. Bahrain is right in the front line of subversion and terrorism. I accept that human rights are not yet perfect in Bahrain, but they are a good deal better than many other places and there can be no doubt that the Bahrain Government cares about the issue and is taking active steps to be as good as possible.

I end by saying that many in Bahrain will be watching this debate. They are truly staunch friends of the UK, and will be pretty jarred off if we condemn them on human rights matters when they are so much better on such things than so many other countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman’s words are very wise. We look to the Minister for a response on that, which is what this debate is all about. Can we encourage Bahrain to get back to where it was? If we can do that, I think we will be moving in the right direction. I am sure the Minister will refer to that point in his response.

I believe in the friendship that we have with Bahrain. British rule was relinquished in 1971 and yet we are in a situation where Bahrain is comfortable housing our military base. We have a large number of British expats working and living in Bahrain and many Bahraini students attend universities in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are friends, but I wonder whether we have told our friends what they need to know—that their human rights record is not acceptable. While we are thankful for recent changes in legislation that give more rights to women and children, there must be bigger steps and more practical changes. That is what we are asking for. We are not saying that they have not moved—they are, in a way, a beacon for other countries in the region—but we need to highlight issues where human rights abuses have taken place.

[Bob Stewart]

I remind the House that it has taken us 800 years to get our human rights in order. Bahrain started in 1971. We want the process to be as fast as possible, but let us have evolution rather than revolution, because revolution is very dangerous.

[Jim Shannon]

We are not waiting 700 years for change in Bahrain. I have the utmost respect for the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but this issue has to move faster than that. We, our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren will all have passed before it happens if we have to wait for so many years. We cannot wait that long. That is why this debate is important.

The Minister will hopefully respond to our requests. I ask him—I have the highest regard for him—whether he feels that we have used our friendship in an adequate fashion to bring about change. Although it is certainly true that we are not our brother’s keeper and can never be held accountable for the actions of Bahrain, can we morally claim to have done all we can to highlight and push for human rights in that nation? In May 2017, the UN Committee Against Torture stated that Bahrain’s oversight bodies such as the ombudsman and the National Institute for Human Rights—both recipients of UK training—are ineffective and not independent, even after the training we have given them to help them move in that direction. We must ask why they are ineffective and not independent.

In June 2018, the European Parliament condemned the NIHR for having

“repeatedly justified the human rights violations undertaken by the Bahraini Government”.

In July 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee reiterated that the NIHR

“lacks sufficient independence to perform its functions”.

I ask the Minister whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office agrees with the assessment by the UN and the EU of UK-funded oversight bodies. That is the question they ask. We need to ask the Minister that question today.

The fact is that the Government have never acknowledged any wrongdoings by these bodies, despite significant evidence, including a report published by the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy and Reprieve. My concern is that that appears to show an acceptance of torture, which I truly hope is not the case. I hope the Minister will respond to that.

I press the Minister for an answer to that question, and I ask about the Department’s assessment of the aforementioned report. What steps are being taken to address the appearance of what some have labelled in conversations with me as complicity with the methods used? There are very serious allegations about indiscretions and human rights abuses, and we have a duty in this House to take them up on behalf of those people through the Minister.

I understand that we no longer rule Bahrain—that ended almost 50 years ago—but we do have influence and some sway, and I remain unconvinced that we can morally hold our hands up and say we are doing all in our power. We have spent £5 million since 2012 on a package of technical assistance to Bahrain, largely to improve the Gulf monarchy’s poor human rights record. That is to be applauded, but it could and should be argued—indeed, it has been presented to me—that in six years, millions of pounds-worth of UK technical assistance to Bahrain has failed to reform that country’s human rights as much as would be hoped or could be expected.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I also look forward to the shadow Minister’s speech, because he always makes very balanced and helpful contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing this debate. It is important in our democracy that colleagues are able to hear all sides and views in any debate. All colleagues have their own experiences of different countries and of different issues they have campaigned on. I led a parliamentary delegation to Bahrain last November—that is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Prior to that visit, we had a very good meeting with the Minister to look at a number of different issues, including religious freedom, trade and security.

Bahrain came to my attention because, just before I was elected to Parliament, Rev. Chris Butt, the vicar at St. Matthew’s church in my constituency, became the vicar at the cathedral in Bahrain. When you have constituents who have gone to another country, and you have said all along that you will campaign for religious freedom, it is important to take an interest in the work they do around the world. I had never been to Bahrain before, and I did not know much about it, but I became interested in it when the vicar in my constituency went there.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows about my commitment to religious freedom—we campaigned together to reform the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. Those pushing for reforms in such countries sometimes put their neck on the line, but pushing for change and standing up for religious freedom and human rights are the right thing to do. That is how I became interested in Bahrain.

When our delegation went to Bahrain in November last year, we went to the cathedral and met Rev. Chris Butt. We went to the synagogue with Bahrain’s former ambassador to the United States, Houda Nonoo. We went to the Hindu mandir. We met members of the minority religious communities to hear what they had to say. It is one thing to sit in Westminster and say that this is what is being written in the papers or said elsewhere, but this is about engaging and listening to people. I make this contribution having gone out there and engaged and listened to those people. I think that is very important.

[Bob Stewart]

There is something else that is very important about this: the Shi’as and Sunnis can get on, and the oldest Jewish synagogue in the Gulf remains untouched. That is very important.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend is spot on; he knows the area very well. There is a Shi’a majority in Bahrain, and religious freedom is absolutely core. They must be able to practise their faith as they want. There are 751 registered Shi’ite places of worship, 432 registered Sunni places of worship and another 618 places for the Shi’a community.

I have said this before in Parliament: there must be no compromise on religious freedom. In politics, there is always give and take, but that is not the case on religious freedom. I say that when I travel abroad. I have an interest in religious freedom, and I have served on the Joint Committee on Human Rights in this place.

Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum engage with diplomats at all levels. On 17 August, I visited and engaged with the ambassador for Bahrain—I am my party’s vice-chairman for communities, and I engage with diplomats across the board. When I came out of that meeting, I was followed by individuals outside, chased down the road and shouted at. Pictures were taken. I did not know who those people were; I had never met them. They had never asked to see me and speak to me. I was threatened. I tried to flag down a cab, but one did not stop, and those people ran after me. I went further down the road and tried to flag down another cab as the voices got closer. I jumped into the cab and said to the driver, “Lock the door. Drive now.” I then reported the incident to the House of Commons security services.

Is that how Members of Parliament should be treated? Those people have their views, but they should engage constructively. We have a difference of opinion. The House of Commons brief says that Bahrain is a priority country for human rights. I accept that there are concerns, but Members of Parliament should not be treated in that way; we should be engaged with. If people want to come to the United Kingdom and claim asylum, they should claim it according to the criteria, but they should respect individuals and how democracy works, and not treat parliamentarians in that way—I make that very clear.

The other point I wish to make is this. I listened with care to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, and he did not mention anywhere where he thinks progress has been made on reform. To be as fair as I can, I refer to page 2 of the House of Commons Library document prepared for this debate, which refers to the commitment of Bahrain, which is a signatory to the United Nations convention on civil and political rights. That note says that some progress has been made—it does not say that no progress has been made—but outlines a number of areas where more needs to be done. So the point I would start with is that progress has been made—my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) took my line earlier.

Over the summer, I read “Agincourt” by Ranulph Fiennes. Many hundreds of years ago, our country went through a lot of changes, and we did a lot of things to one another that were not right, some on the pretext of religion. It has taken us hundreds of years to get where we are now. Countries that became independent only in 1971 cannot evolve to that point so quickly, but it is important that we support them to get there as quickly as possible. The support that we have given on this specific issue—I will be brief because I want to hear the Minister—relates to the ombudsman service. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) wondered about our international partners: what are they saying? They, too, want to see change.

I refer hon. Members to a written answer from Lord Ahmad, a Minister in the other place, with regard to the ombudsman, which is supported through UK funding:

“In 2014 the Ministry of Interior Ombudsman’s Office won the EU’s Chaillot Prize for the promotion of human rights in the Gulf Cooperation Council region.”

Linked to that important point are two of the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. Husain Moosa and Mohammed Ramadan have been convicted and sentenced to death, but the ombudsman’s report found that those decisions should be overturned. They were overturned because of the ombudsman’s report, and there is a retrial process, so the system works. More needs to be done, but there is a document that says that some of the reforms that have taken place have helped to save two individuals from going to the gallows. It is not just anyone saying it, but a House of Commons document saying that reform is taking place and making constructive change.

We all talk about human trafficking, but Bahrain has recently been given tier 1 status in that regard. It has improved how individuals who go to work there are treated. Thanks to Bahrain’s work on human trafficking, it is now rated on a par with Germany, the United Kingdom and other developed countries by the United States State Department.

Reform is taking place; change is taking place. More needs to be done, and I welcome the Minister’s work on the biannual UK-Bahrain joint working group, where human rights, the environment, education and security are all discussed. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about what was and will be discussed.

In essence, change has taken place. Yes, more needs to be done, but it is no good simply to criticise. Credit must be given where it is due. By working with our partners around the world, we can push for more change. I do not believe in the death penalty, and I never have done. I made that point to the Americans, and I always will. We have to work for change, and as United Kingdom parliamentarians we will do so through engagement with our counterpart parliamentarians in that kingdom.

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which shows that I have a long-standing relationship with the Kingdom of Bahrain.

[Bob Stewart]

Not as long as mine.

[Leo Docherty]

Not as long as that of my hon. Friend, that is true. It is an association of which I am extremely proud, because the relationship between our country and the kingdom is hugely important and historic.

I will make three brief points, the first to set some context about the domestic situation in Bahrain. When we travel to Bahrain, we see a young country that has achieved remarkable development in a very short time. Many points have been made by other hon. Members, but those developments include the steps towards democracy that the kingdom has taken, the remarkable level of religious freedom and of freedom of worship for all religions, and the moves towards a family law that provides greater autonomy and freedom for women in the family. They are all remarkable steps for a young country in the region to have taken. Where else can one meet a female Jewish Member of Parliament in the middle east? The Kingdom of Bahrain has made remarkable progress in recent years. I have travelled throughout the kingdom, including in Shi’a villages, and spoken to all sides, and the modern development of this remarkable young country is something of which they are very proud. That is the domestic context, and we must not forget it.

The regional context is also important. Although I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for securing the debate, his contribution was notably lacking in—utterly devoid of, in fact—regional context in terms of Bahrain’s situation. That context is one of Iranian interference in the domestic affairs of the Kingdom of Bahrain. It is a tragedy that, since 2011 in particular, political groups and those seeking to engage in politics have been militarised by the Islamic revolutionary guard corps from Iran, and sectarian divides that were not there before have been created and exploited.

That is a modern-day tragedy, which the kingdom is seeking to overcome. Of course, it did not start in 2011; it started in 1979 with the Islamic revolution in Iran. Since then, Iran has sought to export Islamic revolution throughout the region, and has sought to claim leadership over Shi’ite groups throughout the region. Indeed, a seat is reserved for the Kingdom of Bahrain in the Iranian Majlis—so Iran utterly rejects the notion that the kingdom should be a sovereign state.

That is the important point to remember—what started in 1979. We must ensure that an understanding of the regional context and of the threat that Bahrain faces daily guides our thinking, because the threat is real. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), I have seen Iranian-supplied munitions, explosives and improvised explosive device materials brought into the kingdom by boat by IRGC operatives and, fortunately, seized by members of the security forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

The problem is that some of those weapons get through. Explosives are being used against decent people of all religions in Bahrain, and those attacks are Iranian-inspired. The regime has got to do something about it.

[Leo Docherty]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Bahrain is at the frontline of Iranian subversion, which is a pitched military battle in which many Bahraini security personnel have become casualties.

We have had manifold relations with the Kingdom of Bahrain over two centuries; we co-operate on a range of issues. It is not only about our remarkable and hugely important new naval base, HMS Juffair, and nor is it only about the huge range of technical assistance and co-operation or other matters, such as education and culture; it is about the mutual interest and trust that we have with the leadership in Bahrain, which allow us to contribute and guide them towards better human rights outcomes. I look forward to the Minister’s confirmation and elucidation of the importance of that close relationship to the benefit of all involved.

We must almost remember—I will conclude with this—that, broadly, we face a very stark choice in our relations with Bahrain. The question is whether we want to support this modernising monarchy, which is delivering good governance and trying its best for its population. Some of us know that the foremost exponents of political reform in the Kingdom of Bahrain include His Royal Highness the Crown Prince. There is a huge impulse in the ruling family to deliver reform and improvements.

The choice we face is whether to assist the reform to bring it to fruition or to say, “No, we don’t want anything to do with it. Bahrain can become an Islamic republic under the influence of Iran.” Just think of the profound regional and strategy consequences if the Khalifa family and the Government of Bahrain were overthrown by violent Islamic revolution. That would be strategically catastrophic to everyone’s interests in the region.

[Bob Stewart]

The fact of the matter is that we need Bahrain more than Bahrain needs us. Bahrain is very successful without us.

[Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues his speech, I should tell him that we are hoping, very shortly, to get to the summing-up speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for securing the debate. I know that he and other colleagues across the House take a keen interest in developments in Bahrain, and I recognise the strength of feeling that was expressed about human rights.

I will try to respond to many of the points that were raised, although, as the hon. Gentleman kindly recognised, I will not be able to address them all. In so doing, I will highlight areas where Bahrain has made real progress and set out plainly where I believe the Government of Bahrain have further work to do. I thank all the Back-Bench speakers, as well as the other Front-Bench speakers, the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who again did an excellent job of summing up all the speeches. That means I can get to the substance of the concerns, which I hope is the best way for me to spend the next 13 minutes.

Let me start by making it clear that Bahrain is a key partner for the UK in the middle east, as was expressed. The UK Government make no apology for that. Our two kingdoms share a close and lasting bond that dates back more than 200 years to the treaty of friendship of 1816, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) made clear. We have a strong partnership based on mutual interests, shared threats and a desire to promote greater security and peace in the Gulf. For example, as colleagues mentioned, our new United Kingdom naval support facility, which opened this year, is the first UK naval presence east of Suez since 1971. However, I reassure the hon. Member for Leeds North East that none of that allows the UK to overlook the things that need to be brought out in a relationship between friends. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, we sometimes need to make representations to our friends.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) made clear, we work with Bahrain and other regional partners to confront states and non-state actors whose influence fuels instability in the region. We remain committed to working together to address Iran’s malign regional behaviour and ballistic missile activity. I confirm his view that we will continue to be engaged in such a way in the region.

It is not unfair or partial, however, to observe that there is a much-contested political dispute about Bahrain—national and international. There is a significant gap between the claims on the two sides, which this debate is unlikely to dispel. We heard contrasting speeches, which illustrated the differences of opinion about Bahrain. As with most things in the House, there are elements of truth on both sides of the debate. The United Kingdom recognises that. A number of colleagues have expressed concern about the human rights situation in Bahrain, the subject of today’s debate, and questioned the UK’s close partnership with that country. Although the difference between the speeches has been stark, the United Kingdom recognises that Bahrain has more work to do in this area. Bahrain continues to be a human rights priority country for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and as the hon. Member for Strangford has recognised, that is no small admonition by the UK Government.

The Government remain committed to protecting and promoting human rights around the world. However, we believe that the best approach—as other speakers have indicated—is to engage with Governments and work with international partners and civil society organisations to promote and defend those universal freedoms, and to bring about positive change. We apply this approach consistently, including with Bahrain, and it follows work that—as many of us know—began in Bahrain before 2011. The reform programme led by the crown prince and others had been ongoing, but 2011 catalysed it. The response of the Bahraini Government—the establishment of the commission of inquiry—was unprecedented in the region. The public presentation of its findings in front of the king was unprecedented, and the response of the Bahraini Government was also very different to anything in the region.

The depth and breadth of our relationship with Bahrain means we can, and do, express our concerns about human rights in a frank and open way at senior levels. We do so publicly, but more often do so in private discussions, as the House has obviously noted. The FCO’s latest annual human rights report outlined action taken by the UK—relating, for example, to the prison sentence given to Nabeel Rajab—as well as our concerns about the deprivation of nationality, where that renders an individual stateless. We will continue to support Bahrain to address those and other human rights concerns, both through our bilateral engagement and through international institutions. At the same time, we should acknowledge and welcome the steps that Bahrain is taking to address a range of rights issues. I will highlight some of those before returning in more detail to some of the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Hammersmith.

The UK has provided assistance and support to Bahrain in many areas. First, freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Bahraini constitution. There is a vibrant multi-religious community, and in addition to numerous mosques, Bahrain is home to churches, a synagogue, and the region’s oldest Hindu temple. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) has so clearly stated, members of all religions and communities co-exist peacefully and play an important part in Bahraini society, whether in the Shura Council, in the elected chamber of Parliament, or as senior Government Ministers and officials. My hon. Friend made a brave speech, and I hope that no-one would seek to defend those who pursued him outside the Bahraini embassy in the manner he described. The United Kingdom acknowledges peaceful protest, but there is activity that is unacceptable, and my hon. Friend was right to raise his concerns.

[Bob Stewart]

The Bahraini embassy requires protection when that sort of thing happens. Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office consider whether policemen should be placed outside it, like they are outside the Iranian embassy?

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Grahame Morris]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is about not just the sale of high-powered rifles but the type of ammunition that is being used, all of which has been licensed. The licences include categories of arms and arms components such as sniper rifles, assault rifles, surveillance and armed drones, and grenade launchers. As yet, the use of UK-manufactured weapons in the current atrocities has yet to be verified, but US-supplied weapons of the same type are clearly being used by Israeli forces to kill and maim Palestinians.

The export controls under which our Government operate clearly state that export licences should not be approved if there is a clear risk that the weapons might be used in violation of international law or for internal repression. From the Government’s own figures, it is hard to see how current sales of military and security equipment to Israel are not in breach of those obligations, which comes back to my hon. Friend’s point. The Israeli Government must rein in the military to prevent the further loss of life and serious injuries, and the UK Government must immediately suspend all their current arms sales to Israel and support international efforts to set up a comprehensive arms embargo that applies to Israel, Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups.

The UN Human Rights Council has condemned

“the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians,”

and called for the urgent establishment of an “international commission of inquiry” to investigate the killing of Palestinians during the protests. In my opinion, it shames the UK Government that the UK abstained on the vote, objecting to the omission of references to Hamas and its role in the violence. The UK has, however, separately called for a full and independent inquiry. Indeed, the Minister told the House:

“Our abstention must not be misconstrued. The UK fully supports, and recognises the need for an independent and transparent investigation into the events that have taken place in recent weeks, including the extent to which Israeli security forces’ rules of engagement are in line with international law and the role Hamas played in events…The death toll alone warrants such a comprehensive inquiry.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2018; Vol. 641, c. 579.]

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It would be extremely useful to see the rules of engagement issued to the Israel Defence Forces; I wonder whether anyone has a copy of them.

[Grahame Morris]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. However, certain principles apply in relation to the use of lethal force. It is clear that the Israeli security forces’ response has been completely disproportionate, as demonstrated by the death toll and the huge number of Palestinians with gunshot wounds, many of whom are in a very serious condition and will have permanently disabling injuries as a result.