Civil Society Space

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is such a doughty campaigner in this place for freedom and human rights. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. I also thank CAFOD—the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development—and its representative Ruth Stanley, who a year ago brought to my attention an issue that deserves greater prominence than it is currently receiving: the deeply concerning trend towards the shrinking of the space for civil society to operate, in countries all around the world. As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said:

“Civil society is the oxygen of democracy…Civil society acts as a catalyst for social progress and economic growth. It plays a critical role in keeping Government accountable, and helps represent the diverse interests of the population, including its most vulnerable groups…Yet, for civil society, freedom to operate is diminishing—or even disappearing.”

In the past five years, concerning developments are increasingly limiting the ability of civil society to function. Indeed, as DFID says in its recent “Civil Society Partnership Review”,

“Around the world, civil society is facing unprecedented pressure, from violent attacks to attempts to close down the space for democratic dialogue and debate. The UK Government, as part of its commitment to freedom of thought, association and expression, will stand alongside civil society against these encroachments.”

I strongly welcome those words. I also welcome the presence at the debate of not only a Foreign Office Minister, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and the Americas, but a DFID Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). Their presence signifies the importance that those Departments attach to this issue, and we thank them for it.

It is important that we examine why civil society across the globe faces the pressure that it does today. I will talk later about four themes on which we could reflect. I have become increasingly concerned about this issue over the past year as chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, which has been looking into it.

What do we mean by civil society? I suggest that we mean the complex weave of individuals, organisations and institutions that endeavour to manifest the will of a people living in a community or country. That is non-governmental. They endeavour not only to manifest the will of the people—to give them a voice—but to maintain and support their human rights and freedoms.

[Tom Brake]

I commend the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for the very important roles that they both play in campaigning on these issues. She mentions human rights. Has the Conservative commission that she chairs looked at the case of Nabeel Rajab from Bahrain? He is clearly a very prominent human rights campaigner and he has been detained there for reasons that many of us believe are bogus.

[Fiona Bruce]

We have not looked at that specific case, but I thank the right hon. Gentleman for drawing it to my attention—we will do so.

Civil society helps by speaking out against the bad, such as corruption, impunity, service delivery failure and electoral fraud, and by promoting the good—identifying and articulating citizens’ development needs and priorities. I saw that when I was in remote Nepal with the Select Committee on International Development. There, UK aid workers were helping community groups, including women’s groups, to come together to prioritise the basic needs of their area—for example, the need for improved roads and bridges—so that those priorities could be conveyed to regional and then national Government for potential allocation of resources.

Civil society includes community groups such as I have mentioned, but also a hugely diverse range of other structures. Some are loose associations of people mobilised behind a common goal. Some are well-funded and well-organised charitable hierarchies or NGOs. Some campaign for change. Some want just to provide frontline help. In short, civil society is an extremely broad church—if I may use that metaphor. That makes it difficult to generalise about the trends affecting civil society.

The complexity and depth of analysis required really to get a handle on what is happening today does not make for easy headlines or neat, focused campaigns. That is one reason why we do not hear enough about it, and that is why I commend CAFOD and other organisations concerned about the issue, whose workers live and work in challenging environments where they see at first hand how civil society freedoms are being eroded, and then enable us to bring their concerns into this place.

Often, when civil society freedoms are being eroded, it is by creeping incrementalism. The subtle undermining of civil society freedoms is rarely accompanied by great fanfare. A new law may at first seem innocuous, but it might prove to have a devastating effect on civil society—an effect felt only later. We rarely notice these types of changes, so when they happen a sense of urgency is often not present.

I will reflect, in Holocaust Memorial Week, on one of the worst examples of incrementalism in the last century: the actions of the Nazis. At first, relatively small steps were taken, such as discouraging the reading of certain books or the keeping of them in one’s home. Then, employing a Jewish housemaid was banned. But where did that marginalisation and exclusion ultimately lead? To the gas chambers.

That is why we need to worry more than we do about what is happening to civil society across the world today. We should not be accused of being sensationalist, when we hear, for example, of an NGO being expelled from Egypt, Ethiopia or Cambodia. We should not assume that those are localised cases even though it is not immediately obvious that they may be part of a wider pattern. The sad reality is that events such as those do reflect a current global trend.

In 2016, the Mo Ibrahim index of African governance included for the first time a specific indicator for measuring civil society space. It captured the extent to which civil society actors are allowed to participate in the political process, as well as the freedom of NGOs to operate without fear of persecution or harassment. The concerning findings are that nearly half the African population live in a country in which civil society participation has deteriorated. Two thirds of the countries on that continent, representing 67% of the African population, have shown a deterioration in freedom of expression in the past 10 years.

The main thrust of my message today is not so much to point a finger at Government or Ministers to do more—I am sure that the Minister will be relieved to hear that, although I will not miss that opportunity—as to say that all of us, from individual citizens to elected representatives such as Members of Parliament to influential global institutions such as the World Bank, need to be vigilant, speak out and do more to protect the civil society space in which our brothers and sisters around the world are working to improve the lives of those around them. I referred to the World Bank because I had the privilege of attending the World Bank gathering in Washington last autumn, when a group of parliamentarians from across the world raised this issue. They said that the increasingly shrinking civil society space, including in many of their countries, really needs to be attended to and highlighted more.

Why do we hear reports of the shrinking space for civil society to function, not only in Africa but around the globe? I will suggest four trends that might help to provide a partial explanation and paint part of the picture for this complex and concerning global issue. First, and perhaps most alarmingly, there is the trend in certain countries for more frequent extrajudicial killings, detentions, torture and disappearances. From Thailand to Bangladesh, to Kenya, to Congo, to Saudi Arabia, violence is a daily reality for many civil society workers and volunteers. In eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, kidnap by and violence from armed groups remains a daily risk.

According to the “Aid Worker Security Report 2014”—the most recent one that I am aware is available—120 aid workers were killed, 88 were wounded and 121 were kidnapped in the course of their work. Those are the highest figures ever recorded, and yet even they exclude many local people whose situations have gone unrecorded. Human rights violations and allegations include illegal rendition, such as that of Andy Tsege, whom several of us spoke about in this Chamber a short time ago. There is torture and the enforced disappearance of grassroots activists.

To highlight another example, I understand that the Irish citizen, Ibrahim Halawa, is now serving his fourth year in prison for taking part in peaceful democratic protest in Egypt. We are told that in this period, he has endured beatings with whips and chains, blindfolding, solitary confinement, electrocution and psychological torture. We are also told that when he was in solitary confinement, he was kept in a cell measuring half a metre by half a metre. It was impossible to lie down and he had to go to the toilet on his cell floor. We heard from the Egyptian authorities that he is to be released, but that has not happened yet. I hope that they will hear this debate and that his release will indeed happen.

It goes without saying that colleagues are united in condemning such abuses, but the connection to civil society freedoms is made too infrequently and inadequately. Such violations are each rooted in a willingness on the part of authorities to dispense with core human rights: the freedoms of association, expression, thought, and religion or belief. We hear so often of those freedoms being eroded—of people not being able to get a job and of planning permission not being granted to, for example, church organisations for buildings. All those freedoms are essential for a thriving civil society to exist. As I mentioned earlier in reference to the Nazi persecutions, the erosion of those freedoms is often where things start, but they end up with the kind of dreadful crimes against humanity, torture, imprisonment and deprivation that I referred to.

The second trend I shall highlight is the proliferation of restrictive legislation: the tendency for certain Governments to impose excessively onerous registration requirements, particularly on non-governmental organisations. That often targets legitimate action and impinges on civil society’s rights of freedom of expression, assembly and association. Some laws restrict the foreign funding of NGOs.

Another example of a restrictive requirement is that in Ethiopia, only 30% of an organisation’s costs can be spent on what is classed as administration. That has a very narrow definition, which severely limits civil society. Legislation in Cambodia has restricted civil society organisations from working on politics, limiting their ability to monitor elections or criticise corruption. Since January 2012, at least 120 laws have been enacted in more than 60 countries to restrict the ability of civil society organisations to register, raise funds or operate.

Organisations are straining to meet the increasingly onerous administrative demands of Governments. In many countries the registration of NGOs has become a lengthy, multi-stage process with uncertain timeframes for decisions. That all requires significant resources, which few organisations can afford. I have heard that in China, if a new NGO with international links wants to set up, they must partner with a domestic organisation, therefore increasing the Government’s ability to subject such groups to checks.

In some instances, organisations have been asked to comply with new regulations by a certain date. Failure to do so means that they are forcibly deregistered. We have heard that organisations are united in the belief that that is the way to silence dissenting voices. Some Government leaders justify the discrepancy by appealing to populism—for example, by seeking to portray international NGOs as a malign foreign influence. This is not the time to open up that debate, but suffice it to say that the end result of those restrictions is that often well-intending NGOs seeking to protect or extend civil liberties or human rights, or even to provide humanitarian aid, have ended up closing.

The third trend I will speak about is the use—perhaps I should say the misuse—of so-called anti-terror laws to close down, intimidate or restrict the activities of legitimate organisations. In Kenya, for example, there has been a clampdown on NGO operations in the past two years, targeting pro-democracy organisations. Bank accounts have been frozen and the leaders of organisations face criminal investigations, as allegations are made of their organisations being used as a source of terrorism finance.

Most people understand that the rising spectre of global terrorism has resulted in Governments reflecting on whether their anti-terrorism laws are sufficient for the unprecedented threats that we face today, particularly from ISIS. Most people also recognise the need for special measures to enable Governments to pre-empt and rapidly respond to threats of terrorism. However, we hear that powers afforded by such legislation, such as detention without trial, are being applied in cases in which there is no evidence of any terrorist link whatever. Political opponents, human rights defenders and even NGO employees have been subject to arbitrary detention, justified by anti-terrorism legislation.

The pattern can extend far beyond detention without trial. In Malaysia, for example, a council has been created with the power to declare “security areas”, within which the council can invoke special measures to arrest and detain without warrant. The misuse or overuse of anti-terror legislation also has indirect effects.

[Jim Shannon]

In business questions in the House today, I had the chance to highlight the persecution of Christians under Malaysian civil law specifically and to ask the Leader of the House to agree to a debate on that issue. Although Malaysia looks outwardly like a peaceful country with few restrictions, it is actually a country with significant and substantial restrictions.

[Fiona Bruce]

What often happens in such cases is that a climate is created in which individuals and organisations self-censor for fear of reprisals—the so-called “chilling effect”.

Lest we think that it is only in other countries that counter-extremism measures threaten the space for civil society to operate, let us reflect on the proposal made by our Government last year, in connection with their proposed counter-extremism measures: that all youth organisations outside schools teaching young people for more than a certain number of hours a week should be required to register with central Government and potentially be subject to Ofsted inspections, to ensure that they are in line with a list of values drawn up by the Government. At one point, it was suggested that just six hours a week of teaching outside school was sufficient to require central registration. The proposals could have covered traditional and clearly non-threatening church groups, such as Sunday schools or youth groups.

Fortunately, we have heard little about the proposal since the justifiable outcry against it by several Members of Parliament during a debate in this Chamber. I hope that the Government have quietly dropped it, but it goes to show how vigilant we must be to protect civil society even in our own country. Whenever we have the capacity, we should also do our best to challenge restrictions in other countries where they can be much more severe. We must do so on behalf of those in more vulnerable societies who do not have the opportunity to speak out for themselves as we do here.

The fourth and final trend is the harassment of civil society organisations. One issue arising from legislation relating to the registration or operations of NGOs is that laws are drafted so broadly that the scope for interpretation is wide open, enabling authorities to pursue agendas tantamount to harassment under the guise of implementing legislation. Excessive monitoring, threatening phone calls and unannounced inspections are commonplace. The Catholic Agency for Overseas Development reports that its partner workers in Sri Lanka and Latin America face surveillance, threatening phone calls, searches and disruption of community events. Fraud, tax, blasphemy and slander legislation is applied arbitrarily to criminalise the activities of human rights defenders or outspoken advocates, resulting, in extreme cases, in abduction and extrajudicial killing.

Those four trends only scratch the surface. There is overwhelming evidence that freedom of conscience, thought, religion and belief—in many ways, the bellwether of a healthy civil society—is progressively being undermined. Freedom of expression is under threat; in many parts of the world, journalists live in fear. Around 250 are serving prison sentences as I speak. I mentioned the issue not long ago in a House debate on Bangladesh. In Hong Kong, too, following the arrest of booksellers, we hear that journalists there feel intimidated, and even young representatives elected to their legislature are being threatened and denied the right to take up their seats.

Taken together, those trends paint a distressing picture of the state of civil society around the world. If civil society is the oxygen of democracy, as former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described it, it is in many places struggling for breath. It is therefore critical that we here, in what has been described as the mother of Parliaments, speak out and provide that much-needed breath. To colleagues who, like me, believe that foreign aid is an essential moral duty of the modern state—I know that there are many in the room—it is a matter of deep concern that such issues are occurring in many countries where UK aid is expended. I welcome the Government’s commitments in DFID’s recent civil society partnership review to tackle them.

[Tom Brake]

I apologise to you, Mr Turner, and to the Minister; because I must go to the Holocaust Memorial Day service, I will not be able to hear the summing-up. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is one of the most important things that the Government could do in relation to Syria? Surprisingly, there are still civil society organisations active there. The Government might consider more investment to secure successful elections in the part of Syria near the border with Turkey, where there is still civil society activity.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that suggestion, and I hope that the Minister will address it in his response.

I welcome the Government’s words in the first paragraph of the partnership review:

“A healthy, vibrant and effective civil society sector is a crucial part of Britain’s soft power and leadership around the world. The Government will give them our strongest support.”

The UK can use its considerable soft power to influence global behaviour. Although I would always like to see more done, I commend our Foreign Office Ministers and officials for raising concerns privately and publicly. For example, FCO officials supported land rights activists in Colombia by visiting them, improving protection of their livelihoods by helping them raise the visibility of their case. Just yesterday, when I met the Minister for Asia and the Pacific, he confirmed that he had raised human rights concerns with the Chinese authorities over the alleged forced harvesting of the organs of prisoners of conscience in that country.

The UK Government have given excellent international leadership by example in respect of listening to civil society advocates by tackling female genital mutilation, taking up what was wrongly seen as a niche issue. Our Government are doing a lot. Of course I think that DFID could do more; I have said many times in this Chamber that I believe it could do more to support freedom, particularly of religion and belief. When I went to Nigeria, I was concerned that I had to fight to get a representative of a major Christian organisation there to come to a roundtable discussion involving other NGOs.

I welcome the new review. It refers to commitments by DFID, including that we will

“increase opportunities for in-country CSO engagement with DFID country offices, including working with…faith groups”.

That is exactly what I am talking about with regard to my Nigeria experience, so I am pleased to see that commitment in the review.

I am also pleased to see the commitment that DFID will

“help shape the environment in which CSO operate. We will address declines in the operating space for civil society that reduce civil society’s ability to improve the lives of poor people and hold those in power to account. Alongside other UK Government departments, DFID will support organisations that protect those under threat and increase understanding of the extent, causes and consequences of closing civic and civil society space.”

I appreciate that the Department for International Development Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, has had to leave this debate, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and the Americas, who has remained to respond. I was going to ask the DFID Minister to tell us in a little more detail how DFID will action the commitment; perhaps he will ask his colleagues in DFID to respond to that question in particular.

As I said, there is much more that we can do—all of us; not just Ministers. I have therefore suggested that the Select Committee on International Development should consider sustainable development goal 16:

“Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.”

That is a new goal and a new commitment. I hope that the Committee will examine how it is being implemented internationally, as well as through UK aid. It would go a long way towards tackling some of the grave challenges that I have outlined.

I end by reiterating the complexity of the issue and the incremental way in which freedoms can be eroded. I hope that we will all be stirred into recognising the urgency of the issue and into speaking out to protect civil society far more. In the current atmosphere of rising nationalism and economic protectionism, and with Islamic State so threatening, legislation putatively designed to address those issues could become more common, as could Government acts to deter them. If the pattern of the last decade is an indicator, abuses will therefore also become more common, unless we all resolve today to redouble our efforts to ensure that the oxygen of democracy continues to flow, so that civil society can play its vital part around the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones]

Probably. The tradition of civil society and openness goes hand in hand with the development of charity in our country. It is fascinating that freedom of thought happened at the same time as freedom of action. That is very important for us to consider today.

I want to move on a few centuries and pay tribute to the work of the Charities Aid Foundation, which, as we know, provides great assistance to UK and international charities. It promotes general donations to charities and operates on six continents with services provided by local experts in nine countries: America, Australia, Bulgaria, Brazil, Canada, India, Russia and southern Africa. CAF has called on the Government to consider working even more with Governments overseas to develop civil society infrastructure where the UK is transitioning out of aid funding. In view of CAF’s expertise, will the Minister comment on that point?

My final thought on that subject is that we are probably in a time when nationalisms of different hues are growing and there is a populist message. The hon. Member for Congleton used a word that perhaps more of us should reflect on: incrementalism. It often starts with something small: a comment, a bit of rhetoric or —dare I say?—a bit of banter. It can then grow to something quite unmanageable: the bashing of Muslims and the insidious growth of anti-Semitism of different varieties on all parts of the political spectrum.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Lady makes an important point in saying that it often grows to something unmanageable. One of the reasons we have such a massive refugee problem today is that so many people are denied their rights in their home places and are therefore displaced. Is that not an example of how we have incrementally caused a major problem?

[Susan Elan Jones]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady on that point. We also need to reflect on the demonisation of migrants, which in some cases seems to have dropped into common parlance. Let us remember that, in our country—I think it was in the early 1970s—there was a case that resulted in Sikh bus drivers being allowed to wear turbans. Let us remember how long ago that was and remember our tradition of tolerance.

[Andrew Rosindell in the Chair]

I have a little word for our friends across the pond. I find it extraordinary that certain of the United States of America still have the death penalty. Many people who claim to support religious and individual freedoms across the world probably get put into greater danger—some of the minorities and some of the Christian groups and the like—and they too face the death penalty. I find the very fact that American states have the death penalty quite extraordinary. The British Government support a global ban on the death penalty, but I find it extraordinary how many states in the US still have it.

More broadly, the story of Christians and Muslims coming together over the Wrexham mosque and similar ones may in the wider world in some small way strengthen the rights of Christians, who, particularly in the middle east and sub-Saharan Africa, face unprecedented hardship. That coming together and those stories from this country are important. If civil society matters at all—most of us believe it is fundamental—it is about bringing people together; freedom of expression; and the right to be different, to exercise freedoms and stand up for people with whose opinions we may disagree. That is a vital right in this country and this place. If we are truly to have a civil society based on community and tolerance, and if we care about civil society space in other parts of the world, what we do, think and say in our country matters.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, as I do in the all-party group on the Chagos islands. If there was ever a community that deserved the support of a strong civil society movement it is the Chagossians, but we shall perhaps not trouble the Minister too much on that issue, as he responded to it in Westminster Hall recently.

I congratulate the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate, and want to clear up a point: I was happy to support their bid for a debate at the Backbench Business Committee, but because I would be summing up for the Scottish National party on the Front Bench, my name had to come off the motion. We in the SNP exist in a kind of gloaming—a word people can look up if they need to—depending on whether we are speaking from the Front or Back Bench, and on the topic and who is replying. The concept of the debate has my full support, and we have heard some considered speeches and interventions.

I thank, as other hon. Members have, the large number of non-governmental, civil society organisations that provided briefings for today’s debate, including Bond, CAFOD, Amnesty International, the Charities Aid Foundation, and ABColombia. The fact that so many briefings were submitted is a cause for both celebration and perhaps a little concern: celebration because this country has a vibrant NGO sector that feels empowered to speak out; but concern at the content of the briefings and the many instances of the closing of civil society space around the world. Indeed, Amnesty’s report says that the situation is unprecedented.

I want to reflect on three themes: the intrinsic value of civil society and its contribution; areas of specific concern—countries that we have heard about and specific individual cases; and some domestic considerations and the role of the UK Government. I no longer need to declare a formal interest, but I should say that my professional background was in the NGO sector as a civil society lobbyist and campaigner on international development issues. I sometimes feel a little like poacher turned gamekeeper, but it has been an interesting 18 months or so since the 2015 election.

A strong civil society is a key indicator of healthy, stable democratic societies. As other hon. Members have said, it is such an important indicator that it has been integrated into the sustainable development goals framework—the plan for the planet over the next 30 years. Goal 16 commits countries around the world to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. So it is fundamental to the global vision of peaceful and sustainable societies.

Civil society provides a platform for debate, to influence policy process and to mobilise opinion outside party political structures. The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) referred to the Charities Aid Foundation. Its research shows that when asked who is best placed to speak up to Government on behalf of disadvantaged people, and to influence their policies, 84% of respondents in this country said it was charities that specialised in those areas.

The role of the Church and faith-based organisations has also been a strong theme in the debate. Often there is pressure on them from two fronts—from Governments in the countries where they operate, and sometimes from extremists and fundamentalists of other faiths. Yet often those faith-based organisations are among the best placed to speak out on behalf of the poorest and most vulnerable communities. In countries where there is very little infrastructure, such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, it is the Church that has a presence in the communities most remote from society and central governmental structures.

Conversely, the absence of a strong civil society is generally a sign of instability. Syria has been mentioned by several Members. The roots of the conflict are incredibly complex, but Syria is an example of how, when people cannot protest peacefully against the Government, or protests are shut down, people turn to extreme measures. It allows violence to creep in, and Governments respond in kind. We fall into a downward spiral. That point was powerfully made by the hon. Member for Congleton when she reflected on other lessons from history, especially given the fact that we are preparing to mark Holocaust Memorial Day tomorrow; I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members are attending a service today. The role of faith-based organisations in this country, such as the Jubilee 2000 movement, the trade justice movement and the Make Poverty History campaign, has also been recognised.

Several specific countries of concern have been discussed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) gave a powerful testimony in her speech. It struck me that the countries mentioned are middle-income countries. Colombia, Ethiopia, Malaysia—mentioned by the hon. Member for Congleton—and Turkey are all classified by the World Bank as lower or upper middle-income countries. I said in yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on West Africa that middle-income country status is perhaps the most precarious, because those countries are in transition from having had little in the way of infrastructure or the kind of development that we enjoy. Hopefully, they are on a journey to the kind of stable democracies that by and large we experience in the west. However, there is a huge risk of regression and backsliding, and it is one of the most precarious periods in a country’s history. An important point that has been made a couple of times is the statistic from the International Centre for Not-for-Profit Law about the 120 or so legal initiatives that have been introduced, in more than 60 countries, since 2012. Many of those are in transitioning middle-income countries. Amnesty has issued more than 40 reports on repression and fundamental freedoms.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. Does he agree that we need more lawyers to engage in international development, to help those countries develop strong democracies? That is not something that we have inspired lawyers—particularly the younger generation of lawyers—to think about doing, as we have inspired medics or teachers. If we are really to achieve SDG 16, we need that.

[Patrick Grady]

That is a fair point. The rule of law —we have heard a lot about it in this part of the world in recent days—obviously requires lawyers. I will perhaps come on to say a little about the appropriate use of the aid budget later.

I want to look at a couple of particular cases. Colombia has been mentioned; it is symptomatic of issues around the country that, despite the progress—the peace agreement signed with FARC, pending agreement with the ELN—civil society organisations report that the situation on the ground continues to worsen progressively. In 2016 85 human rights defenders were killed, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights publicly condemned the violence against human rights defenders. What is encouraging, however, is that the UK ambassador to Colombia is one of eight ambassadors who have publicly denounced abuses of human rights and announced their concerns for human rights defenders.

The case of Andy Tsege in Ethiopia, the subject of a debate in its own right here in Westminster Hall, was mentioned again by the hon. Member for Congleton. His case is a powerful example of how UK citizens can be affected by oppressive Government crackdowns on freedom of speech. The Ethiopian Government, which announced the state of emergency that has seen thousands detained and severely limited due process and access to justice, sentenced Andy under a widely condemned anti-terrorism proclamation. Other concerns have been expressed about aspects of Ethiopia’s regulation of civil society. NGOs are not allowed to accept more than a very small percentage of their budget—15% or something like that—from overseas donors. Likewise, only a small percentage may be spent on administration, but the definition of that can be extremely wide. I wanted to flag up those two situations in Ethiopia.

There are some domestic considerations, and it has never been more important for the United Kingdom and its Government to lead by example. The examples given by the hon. Member for Clwyd South were very interesting. Even a local organisation can have a global impact, taking Wales forward to become the first fair trade nation. Scotland was the world’s second fair trade nation, which we are very proud of, but it is something we are happy to work with our brethren in Wales to promote. Indeed, the fair trade movement as a whole is another example of successful civil society campaigning, and it is an approach that also leads to positive economic benefits for people.

Even in the lifetime of this Parliament, since those elected in 2015 have been here, there have been some concerns, such as the threat to repeal the Human Rights Act without any clear indication of what was to replace it. Concerns were expressed about surveillance during the passage of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, and the Government were also pressing the so-called anti-advocacy clause, which would have severely restricted the ability of NGOs in this country to advocate on issues of Government policy. The climbdown on that was welcome. One concern was that scientific researchers in receipt of Government money could not have been called to give evidence to Select Committees in this Parliament, which would have been nonsense. We welcomed the Cabinet Office climbing down to an extent, but we have to keep an eye out for all such things.

I appreciate that a Foreign Office Minister is responding to the debate today, but there is a role for the Department for International Development to play in support of civil society and civil society organisations around the world. The Government should also recognise their importance here at home.

The “Civil Society Partnership Review” was mentioned, but my concern about it was that the concept of partnership was being changed significantly. Partnership was not about working together to achieve shared goals but about a service delivery model through which DFID was almost to commission its desired results from civil society stakeholders, rather than take the collaborative approach that may have been seen in the past.

The hon. Member for Strangford asked about acknowledging the particular role of faith-based organisations. Particular kinds of support and sensitivity are necessary with them.

In recent days the Minister’s colleague in the Government has confirmed several times Government support for the 0.7%, which is important, but I ask the Minister present to do the same again. It is important for as many Ministers as possible to make it clear that the UK Government are committed to the 0.7% in current and future spending reviews, despite the best efforts of some of their Back Benchers.

In the context of Brexit, it is especially important for the UK Government to continue to be seen as a world leader on the 0.7% and not to roll back from such an important commitment. If they are somehow struggling to meet that commitment and to find things to do with the money, plenty of examples have been given today. Only a moment ago we spoke about support for lawyers and legal practitioners around the world. There is no shortage of imagination on how to spend the budget, not least in civil society. I say that as a former employee of a civil society organisation, but I have made my interest clear.

The Scottish Government have a good partnership approach to civil society. Due to the nature of the devolution settlement, they are not allowed to use their small international development budget to fund organisations directly in different countries, so they have to work through civil society organisations in Scotland. There are some lessons to be learned from that model, although it is not entirely replicable at the scale DFID operates on, obviously.

This has been a very substantial and constructive debate, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Governments at home and around the world should have nothing to fear from a strong civil society and, as we have heard from all Members, they have so much to gain.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate.

A well-placed civil society has always been a hallmark of a successful, stable democracy. A Government alone, no matter how efficient, cannot run a country effectively and harness all its potential unless they use the will and involvement of all the people in it. We want to ensure that people power, in tandem with government, starts to work effectively to provide proper and clear democratic structures for societies.

Unfortunately, part of the problem is that, when elections are held, we call the institutions and countries democratic. Democracy entails a structure—a structure of accountability, transparency and rule of law. Unless those things are taken into account by a nation or country, we should question whether they have democratic institutions or whether they are a democratic country. We get too easily waylaid by the perception of democracy as people having elections. First, we need to account for whether those participating in an election are properly selected to their posts. Is a democratic selection taking place? Do they have limits on their spending power and, I would go so far as to say, limits on their buying power in those countries? How are they elected? Is the value of that vote independent and transparent, or is it purely down to whom they can intimidate, what they can buy and what they can pressurise people to vote for?

[Fiona Bruce]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise, as I do, an increasing trend of elected representatives and premiers staying on beyond the agreed maximum period that their nation’s constitution permits, causing huge amounts of distress and unrest in their countries? I am thinking, for example, of Burundi.

[Mr Mahmood]

I concur with the hon. Lady. There is a real problem that, when some people get into elected office, they assume it is their right to continue to rule. That is a real problem for us to address. It becomes not only a position for life for themselves, but a hereditary position for their kin. That is a real problem we have to look at when we talk about democracy.

Those three things I spoke about—transparency, the rule of law and accountability—come from civil society structures. If we have the right civil society structures, if the structures and the systems are accountable to people who work in communities, and if those people understand how Governments need to be accountable to them, accountability happens when an election comes. However, if people do not have access to those institutions, the rule of democracy and people’s presumption that it is working becomes dubious. The rule of law also has a huge part to play. When people are kept away or held in prison for a long time before their cases are even heard, that is a huge problem. Civil society needs to play a role there. When people are discriminated against on the basis of their ethnicity, religion or caste, or on the basis of where they come from, there are real issues for us to look at. We need to look seriously at those things in terms of civil society.

The Minister with responsibility for the Commonwealth is here, but unfortunately, his colleague the DFID Minister did not stay. Perhaps he was unable to participate in the debate. There are several important aspects of DFID funding that we must look at. It is crucial that DFID looks at the democratic structures that I pointed out and how we can best support them. We work in different parts of countries where such things are seen differently, and we need to start to address some of those issues.

We all cherish the fact that we have protected our fantastic aid budget in difficult circumstances here at home. We want to keep protecting that budget, but if we are to do that, it must be implemented properly in countries of operation, and DFID must understand that when it allocates money in those countries, it should keep the use of external contractors to a minimum. If they are used, such contractors must be able to leave a legacy by building capacity in those countries. Unfortunately, in certain cases where projects are taken on board and contracts are issued, the people who deliver those contracts remove themselves at the end and leave a huge vacuum; the budget goes, but there is no legacy. If we build capacity in a country, it can generate further capacity in those areas and move forward.

Several Members have made huge contributions. The hon. Member for Strangford, who is passionate about this subject, quite rightly raised the issues that he strongly believes should be looked at in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. Where people go missing without any trace or are just moved out of place, and where people are detained for long periods without trial or justice, discriminated against because of their religion or victimised for who they are, that needs to be addressed. Those are important issues against which we need to assess countries and where we need to build capacity.

I was actually in Lahore in Pakistan over Christmas. I understand a lot of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I did see one bit of progress. In the majority of places, there was a huge celebration of Christmas. I saw a huge amount of decoration and many Christmas trees, which was very heartening. In the lobby of the hotel that I stayed in, carols were sung in the evening, and people came out. That is a good sign. If the mainstream of the community starts to accept things like that, where there are issues at a local level, people can be stopped from using the legislation that is available to them to persecute the Christian community in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh or anywhere else. That is a positive start, as far as I saw, but there are certainly issues that need to be looked at. Certainly issues have been raised in relation to the Ahmadiyya community. I understand that. All the people living in that country should be treated the same. Equally, I would say that to India.

We had a debate last week in Parliament about Kashmir and the issue of civil society being allowed into Kashmir, where mass graves have been discovered. There has been huge abuse, including the use of pellet guns. Those sorts of issues have been raised, and it is important for us to recognise that.

Extreme action has also been taken in Bangladesh. People there might say that that is because of terrorist activity and that that gives them carte blanche in most instances now to do whatever they want. A huge amount of legislation has come in that clamps down on civil society, justified by the use of the word “terrorism”.

It is right to say that a huge number of countries are now using different legislation to make it difficult for civil society organisations to register and start to get funding. There are significant issues that we need to address. The hon. Member for Strangford made that point very clear. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) also made those issues very apparent and was very positive in the way she came across and the way she wanted to deal with them. In particular, she spoke about the conditions that are imposed on non-governmental organisations in order to frustrate the process; they are not able to do the things that she mentioned.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry) spoke passionately about her own experience and the current situation in Turkey. All of us need to be mindful of what is going on in Turkey and how we should deal with that. Certainly the Minister should seriously look at how we can address some of those issues. I know that the Secretary of State has refused to address any of those issues, but I think it is important that we look at that. This is a close neighbour of ours and it has a huge impact in terms of access from Syria, Kurdistan, Iraq and all those areas into Europe. If the country itself is not stable in the first instance, that makes it very difficult to provide all the necessary services.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) made a very passionate case on behalf of the Welsh contingent about the inter-faith practices and civil society activities that they are carrying out to a great extent. That is really powerful if we are to be a role model—to move forward and say how it is best to deliver those.

I do not want to take up too much time, because I think that the Minister wants to wrap up as well, and will be very pleased to do that. There are some serious issues to address. I had hoped that his DFID colleague would respond to the debate, because many of the issues relate to DFID, but I am thankful that this Minister is here to do so. He has himself played a very active role on most of these issues over the years, but did so particularly in his former role as a Minister of State in DFID, and he understands the issues.

I will bring to the Minister’s attention again—he should perhaps pass this on to his successor—the way in which major contractors deal with DFID contracts, the capacity-building issue and the capability that should be left after they have finished doing that. That is a key issue. There are also trade issues. Obviously, post Brexit, we will be dealing with a lot of these nations, which want to trade with us. We now have another window to be able to deal with them. We should start to insist that they treat their NGOs correctly and improve civil society in order to be able to work with us. There are a number of important issues, but certainly those two issues I ask the Minister to look at.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for securing this important debate.

Poverty, violence, extremism and large-scale migration are some of the most important challenges of our times. Evidence shows that those problems are most acute in countries where civil society is not allowed to function. Democracies do not start wars with each other—[Interruption.] I challenge my hon. Friend to name two democracies that have ever gone to war. By and large, democracies do not suffer famine, nor do they trigger the uncontrolled exodus of their people in a way that leaves them vulnerable to all manner of abuses, such as modern slavery. Democracies are countries in which civil society is allowed the space to thrive, to challenge authority without fear and to work for the good of society as a whole.

The space in which civil society operates is under ever-increasing pressure throughout the world. Her Majesty’s Government are fully aware of this disturbing trend, and we are working hard to counter it. The Government believe that a free and vibrant civil society not only helps safeguard individual human rights but contributes to a country’s security and prosperity. I should like to highlight some of the ways in which this Government work for the promotion and protection of civil society space overseas.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s annual human rights report shows that the issue of civil society space has been increasingly prominent in our human rights work in recent years. Last December, we placed civil society organisations at the centre of our activities to mark UN human rights day in London and across the entire FCO network. In her speech on that occasion, my noble Friend the right hon. Baroness Anelay stressed how she sought to champion civil society organisations on her official overseas visits. The message was echoed by our diplomatic missions around the world, which celebrated human rights day by reflecting back to their host Governments our admiration for the dynamism of local civil society, or our disapproval, and frankly our bafflement, when they tried to clip its wings.

We also support civil society around the world through our human rights programme work, funded by our Magna Carta fund. In 2016-17, we invested £1.6 million to support 14 projects designed to protect civil society space by promoting freedom of expression, including online, which is important in the modern age. The projects took place in countries as diverse as Bangladesh, Burma, Syria, Pakistan, Rwanda, and Uganda.

The Government are equally proud of the effective work of the Department for International Development in this field, which I recall from when, as has been said, I was Minister there for four years from 2010. Since 2014, DFID has been an active supporter of the Open Government Partnership, which drives up global transparency standards and promotes civic space in developing countries. Recently, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria have joined the partnership, bringing membership to 75 countries.

In November last year, DFID published its civil society partnership review, which assessed the results and effectiveness of DFID’s work with civil society. In that document, the Secretary of State for International Development stated:

“A healthy, vibrant and effective civil society sector is a crucial part of Britain’s soft power and leadership around the world.”

She also pledged to

“robustly defend the rights of civil society in a dangerous and uncertain world.”

One could not hope for a clearer statement of the Government’s position.

The Treasury has also played its part, working with the Charity Commission to prevent the misuse of Financial Action Task Force standards, which are designed to prevent the financing of terrorism, to restrict civil society. Many hon. Members will be aware that the Government sponsors the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Through its programmes to support democratic practices and institutions around the world, the foundation shares the experience of our democracy, in which the relationship between civil society, Parliaments and political parties is of fundamental importance. We welcome that approach and want WFD to continue to promote that healthy respect for civil society that we enjoy, and that we know is critical for the quality of democracy everywhere.

Another vehicle for our support for civil society space is the Community of Democracies, a democracy-building alliance of Governments and civil society, the governing council of which we joined in December last year. Its working group on the protection of civil society space issues a call to action whenever it sees a threat to civil society space emerging through new legislation or regulation, or whatever it might be, anywhere in the world. Last year, for instance, it successfully helped to influence decisions in Kyrgyzstan, deterring the adoption of an anti-civil society law along the lines of Russia’s deeply cynical and very damaging foreign agents law. I reassure hon. Members that the UK’s diplomatic service works tirelessly to support civil society and to defend its right to function freely.

[Fiona Bruce]

Would the Minister be good enough to comment on the concerns I expressed regarding the apparent reduction of space for civil society to operate in Hong Kong? What can be done to address that?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I do not cover Hong Kong—I cover the other half of the world, which keeps me quite busy —but I note what my hon. Friend said. I will ask the relevant Minister to write to her with a specific reference to Hong Kong. Our ambassadors and high commissioners frequently stand shoulder to shoulder with those who seek to defend the values in which we believe, including the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and the right to live without discrimination of any kind.

At the multilateral level we play a leading role in defending the rights of civil society. We support the accreditation of legitimate and serious NGOs to take part in the workings of the United Nations, including the Economic and Social Council. Knowing the keen interest of the hon. Member for Strangford in the freedom of religion and belief, I am sure that he will appreciate our continued strong support for the efforts of Christian Solidarity Worldwide to be so accredited. The UK plays a leading role at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in the struggle to keep open civil society space. This year, we are proud to chair the Human Dimension Committee of the OSCE and are developing a work plan that reflects the importance of civil society to human rights, security and prosperity.

Let me turn to some of the very important points that have been made in the debate, in order to give a proper and thorough answer. The hon. Member for Strangford emphasised the importance of freedom of religion and belief, as I mentioned. Freedom of religion promotes prosperity and security and is also an important part of countering violent extremism, so we always urge our international partners to allow freedom of religion and belief, and to end all forms of discrimination on religious grounds.

The hon. Gentleman raised the question of freedom of religion in Pakistan. The Government have urged Pakistan to uphold religious freedom and the rule of law. During the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Pakistan in November last year, he raised the issue of religious tolerance and the importance of safeguarding the rights of all Pakistan’s citizens. The hon. Gentleman also raised the case of Shahidul Alam in Bangladesh. We are aware of the apparent detention of Shahidul Alam in Dhaka this morning. The British high commission is monitoring the situation very closely and will diligently follow that up.

Although the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has left the Chamber, he raised some specific points, so it is only fair that I should answer them—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton also raised the question of Egypt. It is no secret that we want to see more political freedoms and space for civil society in Egypt. The Prime Minister raised the ongoing foreign funding NGO case with President Sisi when they met in New York in September at the United Nations General Assembly. Restrictions on civil society take Egypt further away from implementing the freedoms that are in the 2014 constitution. I can also confirm to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that we have raised the issue of discrimination against the Baha’i with the Government of Iran, and the arrest of Nabeel Rajab with the Government of Bahrain.

I join the hon. Member for Glasgow North in praising the excellent work of our ambassador to Colombia. I have seen at first hand the work of our diplomats overseas who work with human rights defenders, often in very difficult environments. I am sure everyone here joins me in recognising their work.

Yemen

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg]

I believe that is the case; certainly ours was agreed by a majority vote. I thought that my hon. Friend was going to make the different point that all three reports are in support of this motion. I am not aware of any of those voting in the minority in any of those three Committees doing so because they disagreed with this recommendation. I hope that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington and I have framed a motion that can enjoy support across the House, because it focuses on the issue of an independent investigation.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

The Chairman of our Select Committee will recall that when we took that vote—my decision is on record—it was my particular concern that the independent investigation take place. I feel strongly about that and want to put it on record today.

[Stephen Twigg]

I thank the hon. Lady, who is an assiduous member of the International Development Committee. I do indeed recall that her focus was very much on needing to see the independent investigation first, and that was why she voted in the way she did. However, we all agreed across the Committee that there should be an independent international investigation, and that, indeed, featured in our first report as well as the second.

Let me now focus on the proposal for an investigation that is independent and international. In May 2015, at the beginning of the conflict, Human Rights Watch accused the Houthi rebels of violations of international law in the southern seaport city of Aden; the crimes highlighted included the killing of civilians and the arrest of aid workers at gunpoint. Since then the Houthis have been accused of a range of other violations of international humanitarian law, such as the prevention of the import of basic commodities, as well as medicine, propane, and oxygen cylinders, into the besieged city of Taiz.

A United Nations expert panel has documented 185 alleged abuses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) reminded us, Médecins sans Frontières, which often works in the most difficult and challenging humanitarian situations, suffered attacks on three hospitals in three months. In September 2016, the Yemen Data Project reported that one third of all Saudi-led raids on Yemen have hit civilian sites, and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has estimated that 66% of all civilian deaths in Yemen have been caused by Saudi-led air strikes.

UK Nationals Imprisoned Abroad

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing this debate. As we have heard today, Mr Tsege, who was a prominent figure in Ethiopian opposition politics, has experienced terrible difficulties. He has undergone experiences that give many colleagues in this House cause for concern, which is evidenced by the number of Members of Parliament, from many different parties, who are in their places today.

I am here today because a member of my staff recently met Mr Tsege’s partner, Ms Hailemariam, at her request here in Parliament, was deeply moved by the family’s plight and referred Mr Tsege’s case to me. I pay tribute to Ms Hailemariam for her tenacity and perseverance in championing her partner’s case; as I said, that is why I am here today.

I will focus on one aspect of Mr Tsege’s case—that is, the apparent absence of the appropriate due judicial process. Judicial process under law is not apparent from his situation, and we in the UK Parliament should defend the right of all our fellow citizens, wherever they are in the world, to have the benefit of due process under law, whatever they might be suspected or accused of. We should not tolerate without challenge a UK citizen being subject to peremptory abduction, rendition, imprisonment and the lack of a fair trial, as appears to have happened in Andy Tsege’s case. That is why so many of us are here today.

[Bob Stewart]

I am so sorry to interrupt again. Is Andy now under sentence of death, having been tried in absentia, so he is there permanently? Is there any chance of a review of his case by the judicial authorities in Ethiopia? In other words, are we down to political, international and diplomatic pressure to get him out?

[Fiona Bruce]

As far as I understand it, in Ethiopia there is no right of appeal from a death sentence. I stand to be corrected if other hon. Members understand the situation differently, but I see some nodding in the Chamber.

I do not want to interrogate the veracity of the claims against Mr Tsege, but whatever the intricacies of his particular case, we cannot avoid the fact that a UK citizen has, by all accounts, been kidnapped, arrested, rendered and imprisoned, and then tried, convicted and sentenced to death in absentia, in flagrant contravention of the due process of law.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing the debate. Is it not material to this matter for the international community that the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention described Mr Tsege’s detention as “illegal” and concluded that an “adequate remedy” would be to release him and afford him “adequate compensation”?

[Fiona Bruce]

That is right. As we have heard, Mr Tsege was convicted in absentia in 2009 while he was at home with his family in London. He was not formally notified of the proceedings brought against him, nor of his ultimate sentence. Obviously, he was not given any opportunity to defend himself and the US State Department has described his 2009 trial as an act of “political retaliation” that was

“lacking in basic elements of due process”.

Mr Tsege was sentenced under Ethiopia’s Anti-Terrorism Proclamation of 2009—a statute that the Foreign Office has noted has been used to

“restrict…opposition and dissent”

by targeting

“members of opposition groups, journalists”

and

“peaceful protesters.”

Mr Tsege was tried alongside scores of other political prisoners including his 82-year-old father. What is very concerning is that the anti-terrorism proclamation under which he was convicted was not introduced until a month after his in absentia trial began in June 2009. I know that many hon. Members share my concern about retrospective legislation, particularly in the case of criminal charges.

During the proceedings, the prosecution amended the charges against Mr Tsege, dropping the initial allegation that he was involved in plotting a coup d’état and introducing instead charges of conspiring to dismantle the constitutional order. I understand that UK authorities have noted that at no point have they been presented with any evidence against Mr Tsege from the Ethiopian authorities that would stand up in a British court, despite the requests made of the Ethiopian Government.

The civil liberties group, Reprieve, which I commend on highlighting the case, said that Mr Tsege was bound, hooded and bundled onto a plane headed for Ethiopia. It should be noted that the circumstances of his abduction, which have been widely publicised, have not been disputed by Ethiopian officials. The fact remains that the Ethiopian Government did not request his lawful extradition while he was living in London, nor have they produced any evidence to back up the claim of an extradition arrangement with Yemen. His kidnap at an overseas airport is a clear breach of the established international legal extradition process.

Further, the UN special rapporteur on torture reported to the United Nations Human Rights Council that Ethiopia’s treatment of Mr Tsege has violated the convention against torture. In addition to the marked difference in Mr Tsege’s physical appearance before and after abduction in his television appearances—it is clearly discernible—a British psychiatrist commissioned by Reprieve, who has assessed his case, has noted his deteriorating mental state. I understand that Ethiopia has not allowed the British Government to have a private consular visit, making it impossible for Mr Tsege to report directly instances of suspected mistreatment.

There have been some consular visits, albeit not private. When Mr Tsege was with the UK ambassador to Ethiopia he stressed that he only ever advocated the conduct of politics “by peaceful means.” That echoes his testimony before the European Parliament in 2006 in which he encouraged Members of the European Parliament to back the

“peaceful, just and fair struggle of the people of Ethiopia for freedom and democracy”.

In the years before his abduction, Mr Tsege mounted a global campaign to draw worldwide attention to concerning developments in Ethiopia. He testified before the European Parliament and the United States Congress, encouraging the latter to introduce legislation to encourage Ethiopia to engage in “democratisation and economic liberalisation”.

Some organisations, such as the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which has investigated the case, have concluded that the only proper solution is for Mr Tsege to be immediately released and returned home. It could well be argued that the UK Government should demand that. If, following his release, the Ethiopian Government then wish to pursue a case against him, they should do so legitimately by seeking his extradition and observing the norms of legal process. What is the Minister’s response to that and what steps have the UK Government taken in that regard? Have they pushed for Mr Tsege’s release from Ethiopia, or have diplomatic efforts been limited, as has been reported, to efforts to try to convince the Ethiopian Government to grant him access to a lawyer, which, as we have heard, will be of limited benefit at this stage? Perhaps the UK Government are aware of information that is not in the public domain; what can the Minister tell us to help us to understand the otherwise inexplicable treatment of Mr Tsege?

In a recent letter to supporters of Andy Tsege, the Foreign Secretary wrote that

“Britain does not interfere in the legal systems of other countries”,

but it is interesting to note that in recent years, two UK citizens who were arbitrarily detained have been released: Lee Po in China and Karl Andree in Saudi Arabia. I understand that, in both cases, their release came about following intervention by the UK.

The question is whether we believe that the circumstances of Mr Tsege’s arrest and subsequent treatment are acceptable. Surely they are not.

[Dr Mathias]

Does my hon. Friend have concerns, as I do, that the UK Government may be giving aid worth millions of pounds to a country that is maltreating a UK citizen?

[Fiona Bruce]

I was going to observe later in my speech that I had the privilege of visiting Ethiopia as a member of the Select Committee on International Development in 2013 to look at UK aid projects there.

[Mr Laurence Robertson]

It is my understanding that no UK aid actually goes to Governments these days. Certainly, it does not go to the Ethiopian Government. I think that it goes much further down the line.

[Fiona Bruce]

It is now often the case that aid is not paid bilaterally to many countries. None the less, UK aid money is being spent in Ethiopia, as has been indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias).

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

While the hon. Lady is on the subject of aid, I wonder whether she had an opportunity on her visit to look at the MSc in security sector management. I understand it was initially funded through a Department for International Development programme and it appears that some of the people who were responsible for Mr Tsege’s detention had taken part.

[Robert Flello (in the Chair)]

Before the hon. Lady responds, I gently suggest that other Members wish to speak and that I will call the Front Benchers at half-past 10 o’clock.

[Fiona Bruce]

Thank you, Mr Flello. I did not have an opportunity to see the project to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) referred.

In conclusion, disrespect for basic human rights continues to be widespread throughout the globe. I see that all too frequently as chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. It is in that capacity, as well as in my capacity as a Member of Parliament, that I raise concerns about Mr Tsege today. As the Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, so eloquently stated:

“Upholding human rights is in the interest of all. Respect for human rights advances well-being for every individual, stability for every society, and harmony for our interconnected world.”

[Robert Flello (in the Chair)]

There are now six Members who wish to speak. We have 29 and a bit minutes. I call Kerry McCarthy to demonstrate how succinct Members can be.

Red Wednesday Campaign

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to stress that. We want believers and non-believers to allow freedom of belief. That is what we are pursuing, and it is exactly Britain’s approach when we have dialogues with other countries. The fact that we have an economic relationship with other countries allows us to have necessary frank conversations, sometimes behind closed doors; I appreciate that many hon. Members might feel that they do not hear enough of what we are saying and what pace of change we expect from other countries as they raise their game. A great example, which I know the hon. Gentleman has raised on many occasions, is the use of the death penalty. We abhor it, we ourselves have moved through it and we encourage other countries that use the death penalty to meet EU guidelines and ultimately to remove it.

If there are no further interventions, I will move on. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) on securing this important debate. It is an opportunity to confirm the Government’s commitment to the right to freedom of religion or belief. It is understandable that his speech focused on the harrowing situation faced by Christians in parts of the middle east. I certainly share his concern. As I mentioned earlier, this Government have a manifesto commitment to support freedom of religion or belief for people of all religions and non-religious people, which is exactly the point raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). In particular, we are working internationally to deliver our commitment for Christians in the middle east.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

The Minister will recall the debate held on 20 April this year, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) referred and to which the Minister responded. The House unanimously called on the Government to make an immediate referral to the UN Security Council, with a view to conferring jurisdiction on the International Criminal Court so that perpetrators could be brought to justice. I was pleased that the Minister said in that debate that the Government were

“supporting the gathering and preservation of evidence that could in future be used in a court to hold Daesh to account”

and

“will do everything we can to help gather evidence that could be used by the judicial bodies”.—[Official Report, 20 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 996.]

I have two questions for the Minister. How have the Government been facilitating the gathering and preservation of evidence of crimes, as they promised, and what steps are they taking to ensure that members of the global coalition, united to defeat Daesh, are also gathering and preserving such evidence? Given that Daesh is now rapidly losing ground in Syria and Iraq, and with the battle of Mosul raging, does he not agree that the Government should make clear how they intend to deal with the perpetrators when they are caught, and should do so with a sense of urgency?

[Mr Ellwood]

I remember the debate well. I made it clear—I think that I was the first Minister to do so—that I believe that war crimes have been committed in Iraq and Syria and that crimes against humanity have been committed by Daesh and other extremists in that location, but it is not my opinion or the Government’s opinion that counts, because it is not a political judgment. It must be a legal judgment, and there is a process that must be approved. We cannot get a UN Security Council resolution passed until the evidence is gathered. There is a mechanism to get to the International Criminal Court, and it includes the collection and collation of evidence, as my hon. Friend highlighted.

I will not go into too much detail, other than to say that gathering the evidence, by its nature, requires people to expose themselves to dangerous circumstances. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said on a number of occasions, the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind fine. As we saw in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia, it can take many years until those people end up in The Hague, but they are held to account. That is why the Foreign Secretary, when he visited Washington DC in July, made the case and encouraged others to support his view that we must not allow the issue to be missed. We must collect the evidence. If I may, I will speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) outside the Chamber and familiarise her with a bit more of the detail, but I hope that she understands the sensitivities of spelling out too much, simply because of the dangers entailed.

[Fiona Bruce]

I welcome that, because evidence has come to my attention that several prominent leaders of Daesh are individuals in respect of whom the ICC has the ability to exercise its jurisdiction now, due to their nationality. I would be grateful if the Minister met with me to discuss it further.

[Mr Ellwood]

I would be delighted to do so. I simply make the case that the Foreign Secretary is extremely passionate about the issue. Indeed, it came from the voices in the Chamber saying, “What is Britain doing to hold these perpetrators to account?” We must work with the Iraqi Government, UN organisations and other members of the international community to deliver justice and promote the rights of all minorities, as well as to hold perpetrators to account.

It is also worth mentioning that we are working further afield than the middle east, as well. In Pakistan, we regularly raise concerns about the freedom of religion or belief. In March 2016, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the then Foreign Secretary, raised the importance of safeguarding the rights of all minorities, including religious minorities. In Nigeria, we are providing a substantial package of intelligence, military development and humanitarian support in the fight against Boko Haram, including training and advice on counter-insurgency, and £5 million in support for a regional military taskforce.

Promoting religious tolerance is critical to reconciliation and securing a lasting peace in any combat area, but particularly in Syria and Iraq. That is why we developed the Magna Carta fund, which is being used to support several projects to promote freedom of religion or belief. In Iraq, we have funded a series of grassroots meetings between religious leaders of all faiths to promote religious tolerance. Over the past year, we have supported a project promoting legal and social protection for freedom of religion or belief in Iraq. The project aims to prevent intolerance and violence towards religious communities by inspiring key leaders in Iraqi society to become defenders of freedom of religion or belief.

Our commitment to promoting freedom of religion or belief is not confined to the middle east but extends right across the piece. It is integral to our diplomatic network in promoting fundamental human rights around the globe through our conversations with host Governments and other influential actors such as faith leaders, and through our project work and organisations such as the United Nations, the European Union and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Forced Organ Removal: China

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate and on his powerful speech.

Let us be clear about what we are speaking of here, because if what we are discussing is indeed the case it virtually defies credibility. But increasingly research and evidence is pointing towards what is being alleged, which is that the Chinese Government actively condone—indeed, are involved in—the murder of potentially thousands of their own citizens every year for the purpose of forcibly extracting vital organs including livers, kidneys, hearts and corneas, sometimes while those people are still alive, and without anaesthetic. Many of those people are in prison, mainly—we are told—for their beliefs or ethnicity. Often their families are told that they have died. They are young people in reasonable health, and their families are simply handed an urn of ashes.

Credible research findings strongly suggest that many thousands of people are being killed for their organs, particularly people in minority groups, most notably practitioners of Falun Gong—a peaceful, meditative practice—although Tibetans, Uighurs and, potentially, house Christians have also been targeted for political reasons.

The allegations that Falun Gong practitioners, Tibetans and Uyghurs have been victims of that horrific practice are well documented and strong, as I shall recount. The suggestion that house church Christians may be affected requires further research. Either way, all the allegations of which we are now aware are sufficiently strong to require investigation by the international community.

It is of the highest necessity that the UK raises the issue with the Chinese directly, and calls for an international inquiry into the matter, ideally led by the United Nations. Even if the UN will not conduct a commission of inquiry, our Government should investigate the allegations and look at alternative mechanisms to bring to account those involved in those horrific alleged practices. If Britain as a nation is to maintain its status as a people concerned about grievous violations of human rights, it is imperative that the issue is addressed loudly and fearlessly, in co-operation with the other international organisations and leading parliamentarians across the world who are increasingly expressing concerns about the issue.

The Conservative party human rights commission, which I am privileged to chair, has recently conducted an inquiry into forced organ harvesting in China. During the course of the inquiry, I have been privileged to hear, in this House, first-hand testimony of those who have conducted research into the nature of the crime, and first-hand testimony by way of a powerful statement from a former Chinese doctor, Dr Enver Tohti, who has been required to perform an organ operation on an executed prisoner—for transplant, he believes.

The House has been privileged to host the UK premiere of the film “The Bleeding Edge”, a fictional film based on the testimony of witnesses to illegal organ harvesting. It was harrowing. I am deeply grateful to Mr Speaker for hosting the film, and to the actress, Anastasia Lin, who starred in the film and gave evidence at one of the hearings of the Conservative party human rights commission. I am aware of other films on the subject, notably “Human Harvest” and “Hard to Believe”.

As I speak, the Conservative party human rights commission is releasing a report of the inquiry, which can be found on the website www.conservativehumanrights.com. It contains more information than I can relay in this debate, but I will refer to some evidence received by the inquiry. The report was written by the vice-chair of the commission, Ben Rogers, who is an expert on human rights in China and elsewhere. I pay tribute to him for his dedicated work in this field and to the work of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, the organisation for which he works.

Written evidence submitted to the inquiry included a statement from a former prisoner, Yu Xinhui, who wrote:

“Everyone in the prison knows about this”—

by which he means the removal of prisoners for organ harvesting.

“Usually in the prison, regardless of whether the person is deceased, if he is sent to the prison hospital, he faces the reality of having his organs removed at any moment. Everyone in prison knows that there exists a list of names. People…taken away, and no one will return.”

That list of names includes blood types and the health of patients’ organs so that the information is ready and available if a transplant request is made.

Yu Xinhui continued:

“I once asked a prison doctor, because this particular doctor was very sympathetic to us Falun Gong practitioners. He was especially sympathetic towards me, because we were from the same hometown. Once he told me secretly, saying, ‘Don’t go against the Communist Party. Don’t resist them. Whatever they tell you to do, just do it. Don’t go against them forcefully. If you do, then when the time comes, you won’t even know how you will have died. When it happens, where your heart, liver, spleen, and lungs will be taken, you won’t even know either.’”

Yu Xinhui had three physical examinations while in prison, the last of which was in March 2005. Many former prisoners of conscience have testified to having been subjected to physical examinations while in prison that went beyond normal medical check-ups and were clearly aimed at assessing the health of their organs.

The timing of this debate is apt, given new evidence that the scale of organ harvesting in China may now be far higher than previously estimated. The evidence has built to a point where ignoring it is not an option. There is now strong, academically well-researched information that between 50,000 to 90,000 organ transplants may occur in China every year and are, effectively, concealed by the Government. That is in a country where there is no tradition of organ donation. Indeed, Chinese official figures put the number of voluntary donations at a total of 120 for the entire 30-year period between 1980 and 2009.

Let me quote further from the Conservative party human rights commission’s report:

“Although there are a variety of sources of evidence, there are three key reports which provide detailed research into the practice of forced organ harvesting in China”—

the hon. Member for Strangford referred to those reports. Our report continues:

“The first, published on the Internet in 2006 and in print in 2009, was a report researched and written by the former Canadian Member of Parliament and former Government Minister David Kilgour and a respected human rights lawyer, David Matas, called Bloody Harvest: The Killing of Falun Gong for their organs. The second was Ethan Gutmann’s book The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting, and China’s Secret Solution to its Dissident Problem, published in 2014.”

Both David Matas and Ethan Gutmann have given evidence to our commission. The third report, which was published this year, runs to 700 pages. It updates forensically those two pieces of research, is co-authored by David Kilgour, David Matas and Ethan Gutmann, and is entitled, “Bloody Harvest/The Slaughter: An Update.” I have heard Ethan Gutmann publicly invite from anyone, particularly from the Chinese, any evidence or comments that contradict the research in the report, but as of September 2016 none has been received.

The most important point made by the report, and indeed by David Matas and Ethan Gutmann in their evidence to the Conservative party human rights commission, is that the scale of forced organ harvesting in China is significantly underestimated. Their new research is forensic—they have inquired into the public records of no fewer than 712 hospitals in China that carry out liver and kidney transplants. Their detailed research leads them to conclude that potentially between 60,000 and 100,000 organs are transplanted each year in Chinese hospitals, which almost defies credibility. If those figures are correct, organs are being transplanted on an industrial scale, as the hon. Member for Strangford said. One hospital alone, the Orient organ transplant centre at the Tianjin first central hospital, is performing thousands of transplants a year according to its own bed occupancy data. Chinese official claims state that 10,000 organ transplants are carried out each year, but the authors of the report contend that that is

“easily surpassed by just a few hospitals.”

By way of background, according to Ethan the practice of forced organ harvesting began in China as long ago as 1994, when the first live organs were removed from death row prisoners on the execution grounds of Xinjiang. Dr Enver Tohti came to London to give evidence to us, and he told us about the process. He was a cancer surgeon in Ürümqi, Xinjiang province. In 1995, while he was simply doing his job, he was instructed by two of his hospital’s chief surgeons to prepare mobile surgery equipment—in other words, an ambulance—and to wait for them the next day at a hospital gate with the ambulance, the equipment and three other assistants. The following morning, at 9 am, the two chief surgeons arrived in a car and he was told to follow them. He did not know where he was going but, about half an hour later, they arrived at Western Mountain—Xishan—an execution ground where prisoners were taken to be executed. He described what happened:

“We had been told to wait behind a hill, and come into the field as soon as we’d hear the gun shot. So we waited. A moment later there were gun shots. Not one, but many. We rushed into the field. An armed police officer approached us and told me where to go. He led us closer, then pointed to a corpse saying ‘this is the one’.”

A few prisoners had been executed. He continued:

“By then our chief surgeon appeared from nowhere and told me to remove the liver and two kidneys. He urged me to hurry up, so we took the body into the van and removed his liver and kidneys…our chief surgeons put those organs in a special box, and got into the car. They told me to take my team back to the hospital and left. I have no idea where they went… That was the end of that. Nobody has ever talked about what we did that day. It is something I wish hadn’t happened.”

Not only is the scale of the numbers a concern; the speed at which Chinese hospitals can obtain organs is also highly suspect. Doctors will tell us that the time they have to get an organ from a donor to a recipient varies but that it is very short for sensitive vital organs. A heart or a liver cannot simply be saved in a freezer until it is needed, which is why the NHS states that in this country the average wait for a suitable transplant for an adult is 145 days—of course, we are in a country with a tradition of donation. Compare that with the many statements in Chinese medical publications that they can find an emergency liver donor within 24 hours. I understand there is even a medical journal that boasts of taking only four hours to find a donor. I am informed that the Chinese Government claim that the organs come from death row prisoners who have been executed locally to the hospital that is providing the transplant, but the coincidence of that number of prisoners happening to have, say, a healthy liver, happening to match the blood type of the recipient and happening to have been executed locally is simply too much for credibility given the numbers involved. An alternative interpretation, and sadly the one that is more credible, is that people are being killed on demand to supply their organs.

In the other place, Lord Alton has been assured by the Government that the issue has been raised with the Chinese Government as part of the annual UK-China human rights dialogue and will be raised again, for which I thank the Government. However, evidence suggests that the Chinese Government have repeatedly committed themselves to denial, obfuscation and misdirection on this issue. It is therefore appropriate that we increase our activity in light of the new evidence I have highlighted. Indeed, there is growing international pressure on this matter.

The UN special rapporteurs on torture and on freedom of religion or belief have both requested that the Chinese Government explain the sources of these organs and that they allow them to investigate. There has been no response. The European Parliament adopted a written declaration in July 2016 on stopping organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China that, among other clauses, states:

“There have been persistent credible reports on systematic, state-sanctioned organ harvesting from non-consenting prisoners of conscience in the People’s Republic of China, primarily from practitioners of Falun Gong peaceful meditation and exercises but also from Uighurs, Tibetans and Christians.

The international community has strongly condemned organ harvesting in China and actions should be taken to end it.

Owing to the severity of underlying abuse there is a clear need to organise without delay an independent investigation into ongoing organ harvesting in the People’s Republic of China.”

Similarly, the United States Congress unanimously passed a resolution in June 2016 condemning the practice of state-sanctioned forced organ harvesting in the People’s Republic of China. The resolution calls for visas to be denied to those involved in coerced organ or tissue transplantation. It expresses

“concern regarding persistent and credible reports of systematic, state-sanctioned organ harvesting from non-consenting prisoners of conscience in the People’s Republic of China, including from large numbers of Falun Gong practitioners and members of other religious and ethnic minority groups.”

The concerns in America are coming from leading Congressmen and Senators. I was privileged to meet Congressman Chris Smith in Washington DC last week. He is the fourth longest-serving member of Congress and is a remarkable campaigner for human rights across the world. He spoke at a joint sub-committee of the US committee on foreign affairs on 21 June. I will quote him at more length at the end of my speech if I have time, but he told the House of Representatives:

“Twenty years ago, I chaired a human rights hearing in my subcommittee with a Chinese security official who testified that he and his other security agents were executing prisoners—with doctors…there and ambulances—in order to steal their organs for transplant. Since then, this horrific practice has skyrocketed.”

The US Congressional-Executive Commission on China published its annual report less than two weeks ago; I was privileged to meet the group of young people who work for the commission and who produced the report. The commission’s chairman said:

“The Chinese government’s human rights record is utterly deplorable, continuing a downward trend over the past three years.”

That, of course, includes organ harvesting.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and for setting the scene. Clearly the world is awakening to what is happening in China; she is as aware of that as I am. Will the awakening that we seem to see in Canada, in the States and now in the United Kingdom precipitate a need for our Government to contact the Chinese authorities to ensure that they can respond now to stop this practice? The weight of evidence is growing every day.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The growing international concern about organ harvesting means it is vital that this country joins in and does not lag behind the international community in condemning these practices and challenging the Chinese Government accordingly.

I have two more things to say. First, as well as politicians acting, the international medical community must do detailed analysis of the claims made by these respected researchers. It is helpful to note that the president of the Transplantation Society, Dr Philip O’Connell, said at the society’s international conference in Hong Kong this year, addressing his comments to China, that

“there remains, in many sectors, a deep sense of mistrust of your transplant programs…It is important that you understand that the global community”—

I believe he was referring to the global medical community—

“is appalled by the practices”.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes several important points. Does she agree that it would be helpful if the Minister confirmed, first, whether there is a date for the next annual human rights dialogue, and if so when it is; secondly, when the next UK Government report on human rights to the UN in Geneva is due; and thirdly whether there has been any response to the request by the Foreign Office Minister in the Lords for more information from the Chinese authorities about their response to the various accusations?

[Fiona Bruce]

I am grateful for that intervention, particularly as it comes from the chair of the all-party group on China, whose views are very much respected in this House. His questions to the Minister today are very well placed.

Yesterday evening I tabled early-day motion 502, “Forced organ harvesting in China”. I ask colleagues to be good enough to sign and support the motion. I shall read it out in full for the record, because it contains my request to the Minister today:

“That this House notes with grave concern allegations of forced organ harvesting in China; further notes that victims said to be targeted for forced organ extraction are prisoners of conscience; acknowledges evidence detailed in Bloody Harvest/The Slaughter: An Update, by former Canadian Member of Parliament David Kilgour, lawyer David Matas and researcher Ethan Gutmann, along with other reports; notes the recent United States House of Representatives resolution 343 on forced organ harvesting in China and European Parliament written declaration 2016/WD48; calls on China to immediately end any forced organ harvesting; urges the Government to condemn forced organ harvesting and to seek a UN Commission of Inquiry to investigate this practice, or conduct an inquiry through other international mechanisms, to ensure accountability and to assess whether this practice could amount to a crime against humanity; further urges the Government to release statistics on the numbers of UK citizens travelling to China for organ transplants and prohibit British citizens from travelling to China for the purpose of receiving organ transplants; urges the Government to introduce a travel ban prohibiting medical personnel and officials who may be engaged in forced organ harvesting from travelling to the UK; and calls on the Government to give urgent consideration to other measures it could take to hold China to account for this practice and demand an end to it.”

I will finish by quoting the senior US Congressman Chris Smith:

“What adjectives do we use to describe what Chinese doctors and hospitals have been doing these past decades? Ordinary words like concerned, disturbed or shocking just seem inadequate. We tend to reserve words like ‘barbaric’ for truly horrible crimes—and…we must call organ harvesting…barbaric.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate. He is right to say that this is an increasingly worrying international issue, so well done to him for bringing it to our attention.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that this matter is not new to the House of Commons. A number of parliamentary questions have been asked about it. I read through the questions that Ministers have answered over the years, and there appears to be a contradiction: although the Chinese Government sometimes give assurances that organs from executed prisoners will be used for transplantation only with their consent, on other occasions there is a complete, flat denial that any of this is going on. There seem to be two levels of dialogue, which are curious when read all at once as a sort of transcript from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. When the Minister responds, will he clarify whether he believes that that is an issue? If so, what are the Government doing about it?

I want to highlight some of the excellent points that have been made in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) commented, correctly, on the demand side of the problem and on the fact that many foreign people are travelling to China for what is called in the literature “transplant tourism”. She was right to ask what the Government are doing to educate people who may wish to travel from this country to China to receive medical treatment. I would be grateful if the Minister could let me know whether, for example, the NHS has any background information about patients who may be particularly tempted to consider having this kind of operation. Also, can he say what cross-referencing there is between the NHS and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in that regard?

The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is well known for her concern about human rights across the globe. She made some important points today. She was right to say that the United Nations should be carrying out a full investigation and that our Government should play a crucial role in that. She was also correct to say that Mr Speaker held an excellent event, the screening of “The Bleeding Edge” film, to highlight the issue of the forced removal of organs in China. Sadly, owing to pressures on my diary in the summer, I was not able to attend, but I believe that the film is compelling and I will certainly put it on my list to watch at Christmas.

[Fiona Bruce]

I just inform the hon. Lady and other Members that so much interest has been expressed in that film that our commission is proposing to put on a further screening in this place shortly. I hope that she will be able to attend that.

[Catherine West]

I thank the hon. Lady for that information. I will indeed try to attend the second screening of “The Bleeding Edge”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

My understanding of the congressional report is that although it is broadly very critical of human rights in China, the report mentions organ harvesting only once. However, I will undertake to ask officials to write to the hon. Gentleman and expand further on the exact details of that point, in the hope that such comments will satisfy him about what I am saying.

[Fiona Bruce]

By necessity, there are no witnesses to the removal of the organs—the people involved are dead—but does the Minister not agree that, although we have talked about huge numbers, even one transgression of human rights caused by the involuntary removal of an organ is grossly wrong? Despite the fact that the authors of the report have challenged—indeed asked—the Chinese Government to reject their assertions, to come out and say that they are incorrect, there has been complete silence. There has been no rejection of the research or the information, or indeed of the authors’ conclusions.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

At the outset, I stated the principles by which we ought to look at the entire issue, and in that sense I totally agree with my hon. Friend. She is right to say that the difficulty of the issue is that, by its very nature, if it goes on it is hidden. Therefore, to establish the evidence is a very difficult exercise, but in respect of engagement with the Chinese Government I hope that in a moment I will be able to offer my hon. Friend a bit of reassurance about some progress we have been making.

The Government have serious concerns about restrictions on the freedom of religion or belief in China, including for Falun Gong practitioners. The freedom to practise, change or share one’s faith or belief without discrimination or violent opposition is a fundamental right that all people should enjoy, yet we have solid evidence, from multiple sources, of the persecution of religious minorities. Christians, Muslims and Buddhists, as well as Falun Gong practitioners, are persecuted through different means, with reports of their being detained incommunicado, being tortured and receiving inhuman treatment, and also being subjected to interference in their places of worship and in their religious teaching and customs. Everyone should be free to practise their religion according to their beliefs, in accordance with the international frameworks to which both the UK and China are party.

I assure the House that the Government pay close attention to the human rights situation in China. Indeed, no fewer than three British Ministers have raised individual cases with their Chinese counterparts in the past few months. As the former Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), stated to the House on 12 July, we have raised concerns about reports of organ harvesting, as well as of the torture and mistreatment of detainees, during our annual human rights dialogue with China, and I can let my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) know that the next such exchange will be on 27 and 28 October, here in London. At that exchange, we will raise our human rights concerns, including the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners and the lack of transparency in China’s organ transplant system. So the debate is timely, and I will ensure that hon. Members’ concerns are raised at that dialogue.

The use of the death penalty in China is also a subject of great concern, with the number of prisoners being executed a closely guarded secret and, therefore, difficult to estimate. We oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and campaign actively worldwide for its abolition. In the past, organs were taken from executed prisoners without prior consent. China committed to end the practice of involuntary organ removal from January 2015. Although that was an important and positive step, the degree to which it has been implemented is not clear. There are also complex ethical questions about the ability of condemned prisoners to give free and valid consent.

Following representations to the Chinese authorities, we received information on their organ donation policy yesterday. Although we have only just received the information—officials are scrutinising it—I would like to share it with the House. The information states that all organ donations in China are handled within a clear legal framework that meets international standards, including those of the World Health Organisation. There is a registration centre for managing information about the origins of organs used for donations, and statistics are shared with the WHO. The Chinese authorities provided statistics for 2015, which stated that 7,785 organs were donated from 2,766 donors. We intend to contact the WHO to try to validate that information. We have, however, received no detailed information about the treatment of prisoners’ organs. We therefore believe that, based on the evidence we have, it is likely that executed prisoners remain a key source of organs for transplant in China.

The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is no longer in her seat, and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), raised the issue of people travelling to China for medical treatment, including what might be described as organ tourism. We do not collect data on that, but we believe that few people in the UK choose to travel to China for that purpose. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green asked if we would ban such travel, but the British Government cannot prevent individuals from travelling. We can, however, flag the risks and ensure that individuals are aware that other countries might have poorer medical and ethical safeguards than the UK does. Travelling abroad for any treatment, including organ transplant, carries risks. Medical staff have a responsibility to inform patients who are considering that route of the risks and of the fact that organs might not have been donated freely.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) mentioned the Conservative party human rights commission report. Although the Government were not asked to give evidence to the commission, and as such the report does not entirely reflect Government policy, there is much in it with which we agree. We are already pursuing an approach that is consistent with many of the report’s recommendations but parts of the report require further investigation to substantiate some of the claims made. Officials have offered to meet the authors, and as there is—I think—a plan to produce a separate report on organ harvesting, they have tried, but so far without success, to engage with the process of compiling that report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

With respect, I believe that the Minister is referring to the wider report on human rights in China, which was produced by the commission some three months ago. Indeed, the commission said that it would produce a supplementary report on organ harvesting, and it is that report, published today, to which I referred and at which I hope officials will look. The commissioners, Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords would, I know, welcome the opportunity to meet Foreign Office officials to discuss both reports further.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

In the spirit in which my hon. Friend is entering into this, I can confirm that we would be pleased for her to come and speak to officials to discuss all the details and the evidence to see whether we can share information in order to understand exactly what the facts are, and therefore what the policy should be.

There was also a reference to a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in September. We vigorously raise all human rights concerns on such occasions, although on this occasion not specifically organ harvesting.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

It is probably true to say that there has not been much discussion with other countries on this particular issue. The hon. Gentleman, of course, has a point: when countries work together they can be more effective. Again, I will ask officials to write to him about such an initiative.

[Fiona Bruce]

May I intervene one final time?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Of course.

[Fiona Bruce]

Will the officials ascertain which countries have already banned travel for organ tourism? I believe that Israel and possibly others have done so.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

It may not be practical to police it, but I can assure the House that the UK works with like-minded partners to strengthen the rules surrounding organ transplantation worldwide. This includes the development of the World Health Organisation guiding principles to ensure that organ removal for transplant takes place only according to agreed guidelines. We also support the declaration of Istanbul, which encourages all countries to draw up legal and professional frameworks to govern organ donation and transplantation activities. In the past eight years, more than 100 countries, including China, have endorsed the principles of the declaration and subsequently strengthened their laws against the commercial organ trade.

Contrary to some reports, our trading relationship with China does not prevent us from having frank discussions with the Chinese authorities on issues of concern such as this. We will continue to engage with them on the full range of issues, including organ transplants and the wider human rights agenda. We will continue to promote the universal values of freedom and respect for human rights and the importance of international co-operation.

Chibok Schoolgirls

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the missing Chibok schoolgirls in Nigeria.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Earlier this year the Select Committee on International Development, which I chair, visited Nigeria as part of an inquiry into the work of the British Government, including both the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office, in that country. As part of our visit, in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria, we joined the regular vigil conducted by campaigners seeking to highlight the plight of the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram.

As Committee members—I am glad to see so many of them here, as well as other Members from all parts of the House—we made a pledge that we would not forget about the girls or those campaigning to highlight their plight. We have taken opportunities since our visit to raise that with Ministers in both DFID and the Foreign Office. I am delighted—I give my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for this—that we have this opportunity to address this important issue once again.

Let me start by setting out some of the background. As colleagues may know, Boko Haram is roughly translated as “western education is forbidden” or “western education is a sin.” Among other things, we can take western education to mean girls getting an education. On 14 April 2014, Boko Haram militants attacked a government school in Chibok in the early hours and kidnapped 276 girls. At the time, other schools in that part of Nigeria were closed precisely because of the difficult security situation. The reason that the Chibok government school was open and the girls were there was to enable them to take their examinations, and that village was assumed to be a place of safety and security.

Some of the girls managed to escape during the night, but the total number of kidnapped girls was still 219. It is thought that they were taken to the Sambisa forest in the north-east of Nigeria. The forest has been considered by Boko Haram to be a safe haven: it is difficult for the Nigerian military to monitor the whole of this vast area of land. We understand that non-Muslim students who had been kidnapped were forced to convert to Islam and that many of the girls were married off—effectively enslaved to Boko Haram fighters.

It was not until 2 May that year that Boko Haram officially accepted responsibility for the kidnappings. Its former leader made its argument that the girls should not have been in school; they should instead have been married. Later that month, on 26 May, Nigerian forces claimed that they had located the girls but that a rescue operation was impossible due to the risk of collateral damage.

There was then a long period in which very little happened. Very little news came through from Boko Haram, the Nigerian Government or indeed other sources. Then in May this year—more than two years after the kidnapping—one of the girls was found in the Sambisa forest. Amina Ali Nkeki, aged 19, was found with a baby and a suspected Boko Haram fighter who claimed to be her husband. In August, Boko Haram released a video that appeared to show about 50 of the Chibok girls, and a masked fighter said that many had been killed in air strikes and many others had been married off.

The kidnapping of the girls sparked a global campaign: Bring Back Our Girls. I am wearing the badge that I was given when we were in Abuja earlier this year. There was a big social media campaign with the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls on Twitter. The campaign was started by a lawyer in Abuja but it quickly trended on Twitter and became prominent. The official movement was started by Obiageli Ezekwesili, a former Federal Minister of Education in Nigeria and president of the African division of the World Bank. She said:

“The way our Government handled the Chibok girls’ case goes beyond an election matter.”

This was in the run-up to elections in Nigeria. She continued:

“This is not a one-time issue we discuss over elections. We need to have a deeper conversation about what kind of a nation we want to be.”

This was early on, following the kidnapping. She went on:

“Today is day 241 and the girls are still not back. If some people want to move on, it’s their right…But they should remember we moved on when 69 secondary schoolboys were killed, and nothing changed. Do our children now have to choose between getting an education and dying? Some of us cannot move on and accept that kind of society.”

The hashtag was promoted and propagated by celebrities, politicians and others across the world, including our former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), the Pope and the actress Julia Roberts. Perhaps most prominent was the First Lady of the United States of America, Michelle Obama, who said in 2014:

“This unconscionable act was committed by a terrorist group determined to keep these girls from getting an education—grown men attempting to snuff out the aspirations of young girls.”

She went on to say:

“Why, two years ago, would terrorists be so threatened by the prospect of girls going to school that they would break into a dormitory in the middle of the night?”

She also said:

“What happened in Nigeria was not an isolated incident. It’s a story we see every day as girls around the world risk their lives to pursue their ambitions.”

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

The Chair of the Select Committee is making a powerful speech. I well recall being at that meeting in Abuja with the supporters of the girls, who are dedicated and tireless campaigners. It was deeply moving. He mentioned that this has happened to countless children across the world and that these girls are still missing. Does he agree that it is very concerning that the Department for International Development does not focus more closely on human trafficking, particularly given that we hear reports of girls being trafficked, perhaps for prostitution or servitude, into this country from Nigeria, the very country about which he is speaking?

[Stephen Twigg]

I am grateful to my friend, the hon. Lady, who is an assiduous and hard-working member of our Select Committee. I pay tribute to her for her consistency in raising these issues in the Committee and the House and with the wider public. I absolutely agree with her. We have seen a greater focus by Her Majesty’s Government on issues around human trafficking, but it is vital that all the different Departments join up their efforts to maximise the impact of that commitment.

The organisation that has been campaigning has aimed to raise awareness of the plight of the girls and to encourage the Nigerian Government to do all within their power to bring the girls back. The United Kingdom Government, along with other Governments including the United States, France, China and Israel, have all contributed significant military and economic resources to the region to support the attempt to find and rescue the girls. A regional taskforce was launched with Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria, amassing almost 9,000 regional troops to force Boko Haram out of the Chad Basin National Park. There has been concern among parliamentarians globally. For example, the European Parliament passed a resolution two years ago calling for the

“immediate and unconditional release of the abducted schoolgirls”.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the UK Government’s role in seeking to find the girls. Last year, the UK sent around 130 military personnel to Nigeria to assist in training the Nigerian military. The UK and the US have provided counter-terrorism support and advice and, importantly, support and advice on hostage negotiation and victim support capabilities for Nigeria. Additionally, the UK has invested around £5 million in supporting the multinational joint taskforce set up by Nigeria and its neighbours to combat Boko Haram. From our point of view on the International Development Committee, we welcome the UK’s role in humanitarian relief for those most affected by the insurgency, which we set out in a report published earlier in the summer. That money is being used to provide food, water, sanitation and emergency healthcare for up to 7 million people across Nigeria.

I will also mention, in particular, the safe schools initiative in Nigeria, which has helped more than 90,000 displaced children return to school and provided them with the learning materials and teachers needed, including those giving psychosocial support. DFID has played a role in supporting that project as well, and we welcome the support that DFID and other parts of the UK Government have given.

The United Nations appeal for Nigeria is not fully funded and we urge the Government to do all they can to ensure that it is, including by other countries. At the world humanitarian summit in Turkey in May, commitments were made to address education in emergencies. We think it is crucial for the UK Government, and for DFID in particular, to use their resources and influence on other donors to ensure that the “Education Cannot Wait” fund is properly supported and quickly operationalised so that interruptions to education caused by conflict are minimised to no more than 30 days.

We know that in Nigeria, in that region and in other parts of Africa and the middle east, increasing numbers of children are spending a large part of their childhood, or their entire childhood, as refugees or internally displaced people. It is vital they get that access to education as they grow up, and we therefore recommend that DFID scale up its support for the safe schools initiative, as well as engaging with and supporting the special investigative committee appointed by President Buhari of Nigeria to assess the safety of schools in that country. Our recent report also recommended that DFID continue its support for work to address the drivers of conflict through the Nigerian stability and reconciliation programme.

Since the kidnapping, the Nigerian Government have pursued a military campaign against Boko Haram. They have been able to free other women and girls who have been held by Boko Haram, but none were the Chibok girls. We know that Boko Haram has continued to kidnap women and girls in the north-east of Nigeria. We also know that it has been affected by internal strife and a leadership struggle following its pledge of allegiance to Daesh last year, which resulted in an internal division in the movement. It remains the case that only one girl has escaped from the original 219. There have been sightings of the girls, including by a former clergyman, Stephen Davis, as well as by citizens in Cameroon and Chad.

During his inaugural speech, President Buhari committed to redoubling the Nigerian Government’s efforts to find the girls, saying Nigeria will not have

“defeated Boko Haram without rescuing the Chibok girls”.

We know that, because of the conflict in Nigeria, nearly 1 million school-aged children have been forced to flee their homes. According to the Human Rights Watch report, “‘They Set the Classrooms on Fire’: Attacks on Education in Northeast Nigeria”, 600,000 children have lost access to learning altogether. We know that teachers have been killed and have had to flee, and that attacks in the north-east of Nigeria have destroyed more than 900 schools and forced a further 1,500 to close.

Today’s debate is an opportunity for us to demonstrate the strength of cross-party commitment in the House to this important movement and campaign. Last year at the United Nations, the countries of the world came together and adopted the sustainable development goals—the “global goals”, as they have become known. Among those goals are commitments to global education, gender equality and, in goal 16, to

“Peace, justice and strong institutions”.

There can be no better way of demonstrating our commitment to those goals than maintaining the campaign to ensure that we “bring back our girls”.

Bangladesh (Religious Minorities)

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate and for the sensitive way in which he has presented some very traumatic information. While Bangladesh rarely makes the headlines in this country’s national press, my hon. Friend has had a long-running concern about the welfare of the people of that country and their freedom to express minority views of both religious and political sentiment.

I am speaking first as a member of the International Development Committee, which had hoped to visit Bangladesh during the past year, but unfortunately we were advised not to do so due to security concerns. Secondly, I speak as chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. I am currently conducting an inquiry into the shrinking space of civil society across many countries in which DFID is providing UK aid. That inquiry has taken evidence from both politicians and human rights activists from Bangladesh, who have confirmed the overall picture that my hon. Friend has painted of escalating violence and increasing concern about the protection offered to religious and political minorities, including by the state authorities.

I have been assisted in preparing for the debate by the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief and by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which has recently completed a fact-finding mission to Bangladesh. I will not go into all the detail, which would largely echo my hon. Friend’s evidence today, but I invite colleagues to look at the website at csw.org.uk as it contains more information.

I want to reflect on two background aspects to the concerns my hon. Friend has raised. First, there is concern about freedom of the press in Bangladesh. As we know, protection of religious minorities is often greatly enhanced by the protection of a free press. Therefore, it should appropriately be of concern to this House that a number of high profile editors and journalists in Bangladesh have been arrested over the last few years. Earlier this year, Mahfuz Anam, editor of The Daily Star, Bangladesh’s most popular newspaper in English, was arrested. He currently faces no fewer than 79 cases against him, 62 for defamation and 17 for the very serious charge of sedition. There is a real logistical challenge for him to defend himself because all his trials are being held in different parts of the country, and even appearing for them is a major logistical problem.

Mr Anam is reported to be the victim of a campaign that has allegedly been encouraged, if not orchestrated, by the current Government of Bangladesh over his printing of allegations of corruption. Reports tell of the Government putting pressure on his newspaper’s advertisers to withdraw their money and pressure being put on other press institutions to refrain from criticising the Government.

I also want to reflect on the political context of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend. In January 2009, Sheikh Hasina and her party, the Bangladesh Awami League, took power through controversial general elections held in December 2008 and were re-elected in 2014, but DFID commissioned an independent expert report on those elections and their legitimacy was questioned. The report states:

“Recent election processes have had escalating levels of shortcomings, relating to the election commission’s ability to provide for neutrality, integrity, and freedom from undue influence, intimidation and violence.”

We all recognise that often in the context of religious persecution where there is intimidation against the press or political opposition, it paves the way for broader persecution against a range of minority groups, as the rule of law is increasingly undermined in favour of protecting the interests of a ruling party. Prime Minister Sheikh promised in her 2014 manifesto that the

“religious rights of every people would be ensured and the state would treat equally with every citizen irrespective of their religion, culture, gender and social status.”

Sadly, subsequent events do not appear to bear out this manifesto pledge.

I should like to turn now to the persecution of atheists. Some Members might be surprised at my wanting to defend those who have no religious belief, but it is essential in defending the rights of those who have a religious belief we should also defend those who choose to have none at all. This is particularly important in Bangladesh. Unfortunately, violence against atheists has led to an increase in confidence among those who are attacking non-Islamic communities, whether of any belief or none. Since 2013, Islamic extremists have regularly called for violence against atheist writers and bloggers. Killings have occurred with disturbing frequency, and there was a string of high profile murders in 2015.

I highlight the following case to the House. There are a number of others which bear striking similarities. Mr Avijit Roy was a well-known champion of secularism through his blog Mukto-Mona. On the evening of 26 February 2015, Mr Roy and his wife were returning home from a fair by rickshaw. At around 8.30 pm, they were attacked near Dhaka University by assailants. Mr Roy was struck and stabbed in the head with sharp weapons. Mrs Roy was slashed on her shoulders and the fingers of her left hand were severed. Both of them were rushed to Dhaka Medical College hospital. Sadly, Mr Roy died at 11.30 that night.

Mr Roy’s wife survived, and she has openly criticised the lack of response from the Government to the murder, as have others. Strikingly, even the Prime Minister’s son, Sajeeb Wazed, has acknowledged that the Prime Minister is unwilling to show public support for Mr Roy’s widow due, we are told, to a fear that the Government would be accused of siding with the atheists. The lack of faith among the atheist community that the Government will protect them is unsurprising when we reflect that Inspector General A. K. M. Shahidul Hoque and Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan have warned atheist bloggers against expressing their views online. The first warned them not to “cross the line”, and the latter stated that the Government themselves would take action against those

“who defame religion in blogs and on social media”.

I want to turn now to reports relating to the persecution of Christians. Last year, a 57-year-old Catholic priest, Father Piero Arolari, was shot in Dhaka by three assailants as he cycled to church. Rosaline Costa, the 67-year-old Catholic editor of Hotline Bangladesh, has recently had to leave the country due to concern for her life. Hotline Bangladesh is a monthly newsletter that chronicles corruption, crime, terror and religious violence in the nation. Due to her reporting of the harassment of Christians in the country, Rosaline has been subjected to frequent phone calls intimidating her and telling her to “be careful”. A number of her relatives have also had to leave the country after they were followed at university and told to convert to Islam “under the fear of death”. An attempt was made to coerce one of her female relatives into a forced marriage with a Muslim. Rosaline reports that her and her family’s experiences are not isolated and that they represent a microcosm of the wider persecution that many Christians face in the country, with continuous intimidation in an atmosphere of hostility.

I endorse the evidence given by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East regarding the persecution of Hindus. Buddhists and Hindus are deeply concerned about persecution. Advocate Rana Dasgupta, secretary-general of the Hindu Buddhist Christian Unity Council of Bangladesh is quoted as saying:

“The entire community has been terrorised and is feeling very insecure. We are not seeing any active role by the political parties to find solutions to these problems that we are facing.”

Christian Solidarity Worldwide continues to receive reports of attacks on Hindus and Buddhists, as shown in evidence on its website.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Spencer.)

[Fiona Bruce]

In conclusion and in light of such concerns, I have several questions for the Minister. I pay tribute to DFID representatives in Bangladesh. What work is being done by DFID in that country to address both religious persecution and the reported absence of steps by the Government there to satisfactorily address them?

What representations have been made by our Ministers to their Bangladeshi counterparts to express concern about the abuse of human rights in Bangladesh, about which we have heard today?

Has there been any exploration of bans on the entry to the UK of law enforcement personnel who may be involved in attacks on activists in Bangladesh on religious or political grounds?

Finally, has a review been proposed of the UK’s business involvement in Bangladesh to ensure that no UK funds are being used to support systems that oppress religious minorities?

Human Rights (Burundi)

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place to respond. I thank the Speaker for granting this debate; it is a privilege to raise in the House the human rights situation in Burundi, which I had the privilege of visiting in 2013 and 2014 and where I received a welcome from the Burundian people that could not have been warmer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and I jointly called for this debate, so we are dividing the allotted speaking time between us. I acknowledge with great respect the work that he has already undertaken, including the debate that he secured last December, to which the Minister also responded. It is unfortunate that the matter must be revisited so soon, but the human rights situation in Burundi has deteriorated further since. Indeed, the day after last December’s debate, more than 100 individuals were murdered by Government security forces on the worst day of violence in Burundi since the crisis began.

The crisis started a year ago after President Nkurunziza contentiously announced that he would seek a third term, triggering an unsuccessful coup followed by presidential elections in July 2015 that were declared by the UN as neither free nor fair. As I mentioned, there were major disturbances in December, including fighting on the streets by armed opponents of the President, both Hutu and Tutsi. They mounted an attack on a barracks, after which Government troops moved through the neighbourhoods of the capital that were thought to have supported rebels, reportedly killing as many as 700 people and subsequently transporting them to mass graves in state vehicles.

Since then, while there has fortunately been no repeat of fighting on that scale, killings continue on a regular basis. Weekly reports are coming in of new violence and killings and of the Government adopting a strategy of eliminating their opponents. Grounds for suspicion have been described as razor thin. A scared 15-year-old was killed while simply running away from the police. A cameraman and his family were killed, seemingly in the wrong place at the wrong time. Another victim was a teenage boy selling eggs. Other killings seem not so random, with reports of young men who had opposed the Government being hunted down in a refugee camp some distance from Bujumbura to which they had fled. Of most concern are the reports that people are now being targeted for their ethnicity as well as for their political affiliation, with a disproportionate number of the minority Tutsis being sidelined from Government institutions and with the army, which has recently considerably increased in size, being divided into Hutus and Tutsis. Such reports have increased concern in the international community, and it is right that the House discuss this issue now so that we can add our voices to those calling for help to achieve stability and justice for the Burundian people.

Burundi was already one of the poorest countries in the world before the crisis began. It has the second-lowest income and is highly dependent on external aid, with almost half of the state budget externally financed. However, the suspension of aid flows over the past year mean that the share of the budget accounted for by aid is projected to fall by a third this year. Further economic decline and the redirection of funds by the Government from social programmes to the army have combined to produce a humanitarian emergency that has resulted in severe malnutrition. There are reports that people are beginning to starve. The price of rice has trebled in some areas. Farmers who used to sell vegetables to people on the road can no longer do so, saying that their customers have disappeared, fearful of being out and about. Medical supplies dwindle. Children, who make up half of Burundians, suffer disproportionately as a result of violence, exploitation, and family separation. More than 230,000 people have fled in the past year alone, and that number is increasing. Most have gone as refugees to Rwanda and Tanzania, but some have gone to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda.

In Burundi, people cannot freely move around, given a proliferation of police roadblocks and the chance of being arrested if caught in the wrong place. Alarmingly, there have been reports of hundreds of Burundians, perhaps more—they are often young Burundians; those between their mid-teens and mid-20s—having disappeared or been tortured, reportedly with gun butts, electric cables, bricks or metal rods, with some having even been required to sit in acid. There are reports of girls being raped in front of their parents and of mutilations, such as the removal of genitals and even of hearts. UN human rights records show 600 cases in 2015 and more than 340 during the first four months of this year. Private media outlets have been shut down, and civil society organisations have been closed or banned. Perhaps worst of all, Burundi has become a place of fear. In cities, people fear abductions, torture and murder; in the countryside, they fear hunger, as the economy collapses. Even among the Government’s higher ranks there is a constant fear of assassination, a reality in evidence all too clearly only a couple of weeks ago when a major general in the Burundi army, who had returned to Burundi just three weeks earlier, after a two year-peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic, was shot in his car while going to work with his wife and four children, whom he was going to take to school.

Perhaps the biggest fear of all is that this conflict, which has so far been fought on political lines, could divide Burundi on ethnic ones, between Hutus and Tutsis, and lead to new massacres. History has shown that such events can happen swiftly, as in Rwanda in 1994, with the outside world barely noticing until it was too late. To prevent that, above all, is surely why we in this place must sound an alarm and call on our Government to call on the UN and others in the international community to do all they can to step in to secure peace and stability for the people of Burundi.

I know that this Minister and other Foreign Office Ministers understand the severity of the crisis in Burundi, as he has been good enough to speak with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on a number of occasions. But in the light of the continuing deterioration of the human rights situation in Burundi, may I urge that Ministers press the United Nations to consider the deployment of a substantial UN force to Burundi, as outlined in a letter of 15 April from the UN Secretary-General to the UN Security Council? That would help to monitor the security situation, improve respect for human rights and advance the rule of law. We hope that it would stem any further human rights deterioration and facilitate dialogue toward a political settlement with the Burundian Government, to be conducted free of a climate of violence or reprisal. We hope that this would, in turn, help stem the increasing humanitarian crisis and perhaps facilitate the reinstatement of aid, suspended by some members of the international community following the commencement of these disturbances, as soon as possible. I would appreciate the Minister’s specific response on those points.

I also welcome last week’s statement by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on opening a preliminary examination into the situation in Burundi over the past year. That shows how grave the human rights situation is there. What further support or contribution can the UK offer to help promote peace, stability and a restoration of human rights for the beleaguered people of Burundi?

Finally, on UK aid, the Government have already provided substantial support for refugees from Burundi, and that is appreciated and acknowledged. In view of the numbers involved, which continue to increase, will the Minister use his influence to ask the Department for International Development to encourage other donors to add their support, and to ascertain what further UK support can be provided? Will the Government confirm that they will also look, on the basis that if the UN deployment that I have referred to achieves its objectives, at the reinstatement of bilateral UK aid to Burundi, which was suspended some years ago? Those of us on the Select Committee on International Development have been calling for that for some years.

I look forward to responses on these points from the Minister, if need be after the debate, given that some of them refer to areas where DFID has authority. I do not wish to sound more alarmist than current circumstances indicate, but they are grave. For those of us who have spent time in the past few years in both Burundi and Rwanda, and know how close these countries are, geographically and in other ways, there is deep concern to ensure that our Government and the international community do all they can to ensure that there is no chance of a repeat of the haunting occurrences in Rwanda in the 1990s.

Daesh: Genocide of Minorities

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that Christians, Yazidis, and other ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria are suffering genocide at the hands of Daesh; and calls on the Government to make an immediate referral to the UN Security Council with a view to conferring jurisdiction upon the International Criminal Court so that perpetrators can be brought to justice.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate.

Genocide is a word of such gravity that it should never be used readily. It is rightly known as the “crime above all crimes”. For that reason, it is incumbent on us to prevent the term from being devalued or overused. However, such caution must not stop us naming a genocide when one is taking place. The supporters of the motion are here to insist that there is overwhelming evidence that the atrocities of Daesh in Syria and Iraq should be recognised for the genocide they are and considered as such by the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court. It will support similar resolutions of other leading international and legislative bodies.

There are only two possibilities for Members here. If the House is not satisfied that genocidal atrocities are being perpetrated, we must not pass the motion, on which I am minded to test the will of the House, but if colleagues believe that the depravities of Daesh are being undertaken with genocidal intent, we have already waited far too long to recognise it.

Yesterday evening, here in the UK Parliament, we heard the truly harrowing personal testimony of a brave 16-year-old Yazidi girl called Ekhlas. She was seized by Daesh from her home, along with others from her community in Sinjar in northern Iraq. At the age of 15, she saw her father and brother killed in front of her. She told of how every girl in her community over eight, including herself, was imprisoned and raped. She spoke of witnessing her friends being raped and hearing their screams, and of seeing a girl aged nine being raped by so many men that she died. Many young girls had their fragile bodies rendered incapable of pregnancy, and others who were far too young to be so were made pregnant. Horrifically, she spoke of seeing a two-year-old boy being killed and of his body parts being ground down and fed to his own mother. She told of children being brainwashed and forced to kill their own parents. Fortunately, she managed to escape the prison during a bombardment of the area around it. Others are not so fortunate.

We heard from another women, Yvette, who had come directly from Syria for last night’s meeting. She spoke of Christians being killed and tortured, and of children being beheaded in front of their parents. She showed us recent film footage of herself talking with mothers—more than one—who had seen their own children crucified. Another woman had seen 250 children put through a dough kneader and burnt in an oven. The oldest was four years old. She told us of a mother with a two-month-old baby. When Daesh knocked at the front door of her house and ordered the entire family out, she pleaded with them to let her collect her child from another room. They told her, “No. Go. It is ours now.”

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing forward this very important debate. She is making a powerful speech. Every year, Members of this House sign the holocaust book of commitment, making the pledge that that terrible genocide will never be forgotten. I have personally signed a pledge that I will never walk on by. Does she agree that today we have the opportunity to make sure that none of us walks on by as we see this terrible genocide unfold?

[Fiona Bruce]

I absolutely do. After the horrors of the holocaust, the words, “Never again” resounded through civilisation. We must not let them resound again.

Speaking to MPs at yesterday’s meeting, the young girl Ekhlas implored us:

“Listen to me, help the girls, help those in captivity; I am pleading with you, let us come together and call this what it is: a genocide. This is about human dignity. You have a responsibility. ISIS are committing a genocide, because they are trying to wipe us out.”

Genocide is an internationally recognised term, defined in the 1948 convention on genocide, to which we are a signatory as a country, as

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group…Killing…Causing serious bodily or mental harm… Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions…calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…Imposing measures intended to prevent births…Forcibly transferring children”.

I put it to the House that not just one but every single one of those criteria was satisfied by the two testimonies yesterday.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Fiona Bruce]

I will, but after that I will not take any further interventions because of the limitation placed on my speaking time.

[Rehman Chishti]

I applaud my hon. Friend for bringing this motion to the Floor of the House. She talks about using the term genocide; our international partners, such as the United States, its Secretary of State and House of Representatives, and the European Parliament have already said that the acts committed by Daesh amount to genocide. We should interpret international law in line with our key partners, who we are working with to defeat Daesh.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

I absolutely agree. We do not want to be behind but in the lead. Our country has a proud history of leading on human rights and ensuring that aggressors are brought to justice. We must do so in this case, too.

Yazidis and Christians have been targeted explicitly because of their religion and ethnicity. It is not just them, but Alawites, Shi’as, Shabaks and Mandaeans. The suffering of the two women I mentioned has been replicated countless times by other families, as we know from the statistics that we have all heard in this House. I have seen many reports documenting evidence of genocidal atrocities, as I am sure other Members have, from the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN assistance mission for Iraq and others—thousands of pages recording executions, mass graves, assassinations of church leaders, crucifixions, systematic rapes, torture of men, women and children, beheadings, and many other acts of violence so unspeakable that their evil seems almost fictional. But it is not.

Daesh is targeting specific groups precisely because of those groups’ characteristics, and it has declared that, and that its acts have genocidal intent. For example, issue 4 of its online magazine “Dabiq” tells its followers that they will be held accountable if the Yazidi people continue to exist. As Lord Alton of Liverpool—I pay tribute to him for his work on this issue—has said, if we do not recognise this as genocide

“we might as well rip up the genocide convention as a worthless piece of paper.”

As a consequence of the evidence meticulously collected by non-governmental organisations, activists and the UN, resolutions condemning the actions of Daesh’s genocide have been passed around the world—as has been mentioned—by the Council of Europe in January 2016, the European Parliament in February and the US House of Representatives in March. Following that, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, made an announcement confirming the position of the US Government, stating that,

“Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control including Yazidis, Christians and Shia Muslims. Daesh is genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology and by actions”.

If that is the position of the US Government, why is it not the position of our own?

In answer to that question, which has been raised many times, UK Government Ministers have repeatedly said that,

“it is a long-standing Government policy that any judgements on whether genocide has occurred should be a matter for the international judicial system rather than legislatures, governments or other non-judicial bodies.”

In other words, whether this is genocide is a matter for the courts to decide; in this case, more specifically, it is a matter for the International Criminal Court. But—this is the crucial point of the motion—under the procedures relating to the ICC, it cannot make that judgment until it is requested to do so, and the only way that can now happen is if such a referral is made by the UN Security Council, of which the UK Government are a permanent member. That is why supporting the motion is so important. There is a circular argument here—a stalemate—which this Parliament needs to break. The motion before the House calls on us, as Members of the UK Parliament, to make a declaration of genocide, and then asks that the UK Government refer that to the UN Security Council so that the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court can take action.

That prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, has already said, as long as a year ago, that she stands ready to take action, given a referral, saying:

“I remain profoundly concerned by this situation and I want to emphasise our collective duty as a global community to respond to the plight of victims whose rights and dignity have been violated. ISIS continues to spread terror on a massive scale in the territories it occupies. The international community pledged that appalling crimes that deeply shock the conscience of humanity must not go unpunished. As Prosecutor of the ICC, I stand ready to play my part, in an independent and impartial manner.”

When so much suffering continues daily, can we wait any longer before doing all that we can to act against it?

I am aware that the UK Government are already involved in assertively tackling the aggression of Daesh and its poisonous ideology in many ways, not least through air strikes, cutting off finance and providing counter-terrorism expertise, as well as through humanitarian aid and information gathering. I commend the Government for that, but there can surely be no good reason for delaying the additional step of referring this to the UN Security Council with a view to conferring jurisdiction on the ICC to start its own unique procedures to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Some may ask what difference that would really make. It will make a real difference. Recognition of genocide brings with it obligations on the part of the international community to prevent, punish and protect. It initiates the process leading to the prosecution of perpetrators and makes it more likely that guilty individuals will be punished. It is often followed by a stronger international response both against the atrocities and in the provision of greater help for survivors with their urgent needs—something that is much needed in this case. It can facilitate reparations for survivors.

Recognising the actions of Daesh as genocide should therefore help inject further momentum into the international efforts to stop the killings. It would, I hope, lead to more active safeguarding of those members of religious minorities on the ground whose lives and very communities currently hang in the balance. It may also make potential new recruits—including those from the UK—think twice about joining Daesh, given the ramifications of being caught.

Recognition of genocide is not the only or the final action of the international community, but it is a crucial step, and one that we should make today. I recognise that conferring jurisdiction on the ICC requires the support of other members of the Security Council, but that should not stop our country from initiating the process. I add that there is precedent for the Security Council to establish a fact-finding committee of experts, so that all current evidence can be assessed and new evidence can be collected. If the motion is passed, I appeal to the Government to consider that recommendation at the Security Council.

I repeat: some may ask, “What difference will this really make?” I leave the final word to the young girl Ekhlas. To her, it would make all the difference in the world. When I asked her yesterday what her hopes were for the future, she replied,

“to see justice done for my people.”

I ask Members to support the motion. In the final analysis, it is about doing justice and seeing it done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

At least 18 Back-Bench Members have spoken in this debate, and all of them, without exception, have not only supported the motion but made deeply moving and powerful speeches. We have today heard irrefutable evidence of genocide by Daesh in Iraq and Syria. The case has been made.

We have heard no good grounds for this issue not to be referred to the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court. The fact that other members of the UN Security Council may veto a referral is no reason for our country not to show a lead. The fact that Russia and China vetoed a 2014 referral—which related to general action in Syria, not to the specific point of genocide by Daesh—should not prevent this country from making a referral.

Several Members have called for a vote. We should have one. We have heard many reasons why this matter should be referred to the UN Security Council. We owe it to the victims to seek justice for those who suffer, to show an international lead, to be a voice for the voiceless and to hold the perpetrators to account.

This motion is simple: it asks the Members of this Parliament to recognise the genocide that is taking place for what it is. Can anyone who has listened to this debate deny that? If there ever was a vote on a matter of conscience, surely this is one. It is a matter of life and death. If there ever was a vote that should be a wholly free vote for Members of this place, surely this is one. Payroll Members should not be asked to abstain. In spite of the fact that the number of Members voting will not be as it should be, I trust that the Government will accept the will of this House and take the action stipulated by the motion, which I hope will receive overwhelming support from Members across this House.

Question put.

Burma

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I join my colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on his eloquent speech and on his close and direct interest in Burma, which he has shown since he entered the House. That has been most welcome, especially by those of us who have had an interest for some years.

I welcome, too, the long-awaited democratic elections, which recently took place, and I join my colleagues in praising the bravery of millions of Burmese citizens who campaigned for decades, often at great personal cost, for liberty and democracy in their country.

I also join my colleagues in thanking the staff of this House who have been out to Burma, certainly since the visit of the Speaker’s delegation in 2013, which included me and the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). We learnt, including directly from Aung San Suu Kyi, how much the Burmese wanted and invited help with such issues as library facilities and research resources. It is to be commended that some of our staff went there—at least one for well over a year, away from home and family—

[Paul Scully]

Two years almost.

[Fiona Bruce]

Indeed, almost two years—to provide substantial help. I want to recognise that Mr Speaker has stayed true to his word, which he gave on that delegation, that we would provide help.

I am encouraged by the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) on how much constructive help has been given to the MPs in Burma—again much needed. When we were there, they were quite surprised to hear that we went back to our constituencies every week. I remember providing a modest training session on Select Committees—again with the hon. Member for Walsall South—and people were surprised, because in this country Select Committees are not given the subject that they are to look into by the Government and, once they have looked into it, do not submit their report to the Government to be checked before it is published. I am encouraged that there has been a great deal of progress, so I commend my hon. Friend and the others involved.

As we are joyful, so we are cautious. Burma remains a nation in a delicate state. Hate speech, religious intolerance and the powerful remnant of the military still threaten to slow or prevent the next stage of Burma’s growth. As we speak, forces continue to destabilise and halt the hard-won progress to date. The delicate balance of joy and caution is summed up in the words of the moderate Cardinal Bo, who has already been mentioned in the debate. He is a greatly respected and long-standing champion of human rights in Burma. He said:

“My country is emerging from a long night of tears and sadness into a new dawn...But our young democracy is fragile, and human rights continue to be abused and violated.”

We rightly extend our support, therefore, to Aung San Suu Kyi and the new President, U Htin Kyaw, who face the challenge of nurturing the fragile democracy. Even as we speak, nationalists have been protesting against the appointment of Vice-President Henry Van Thio, because he is a Christian and a member of the Chin ethnic group. The ultra-nationalists find it an offence that a member of another religion and of a minority group should be in a position of such authority.

That is an important example to dwell on, because freedom of religion and belief has been under extreme pressure in recent decades in Burma. Minorities of all religions have suffered, as well as Buddhists, who stood up to the state-sponsored interpretations of Buddhism that we have heard about. So we celebrate the appointment of Henry Van Thio, and we hope that he will be a symbol of encouragement to many from the minorities in the country, who to date have been excluded from a voice in government.

Particularly persecuted, as we have heard, have been the Rohingya Muslims of Rakhine state. Previously, the regime promoted an ideology of hate that rejected the idea that Muslims could be fully Burmese, or that the Rohingya people had any right to live in the country. They were grievously targeted by military forces, and hundreds were killed and 140,000 reportedly displaced by violence in 2012. We need to ensure that they are given appropriate support and help.

Of comparable concern are the military offensives still being waged by the Burmese army against civilians in northern Shan and southern Kachin states. Gross violations of human rights have forced tens of thousands to flee, as we have heard. They either live as internally displaced persons, or IDPs, in dire conditions, or eke out a living as refugee migrants in other countries. In that context, I commend in particular the work of Baroness Cox from the other place and of her charity, HART, the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust.

HART has done great work to assist oppressed people in Burma and to bring that oppression and the violations of human rights to the attention of the wider world. I will refer to some of Baroness Cox’s work in more detail. In Burma, HART works to provide lifelines among the Shan, Karen, Chin and Karenni peoples. Shan Women’s Action Network—SWAN—runs health, education and women’s empowerment programmes. HART works only with local people, and through its remarkable work it is transforming in particular women’s perceptions of their roles in their communities—as the hon. Member for Walsall South mentioned, that is much needed—and enabling them to become strong agents of change. I want to extend my best to HART for that vital work in strengthening civil society.

If the good people of Burma are to realise their potential, it is critical that civil society is strengthened and encouraged, particularly at a time when concerns are increasingly being expressed about the shrinking space for it across the globe. I ask the Minister to consider how civil society can be supported. I commend him on his sincere personal commitment to Burma over many years. I know that he is a Foreign Office Minister, but may I request again that DFID looks at how it can support small charitable organisations such as HART? It receives no support from DFID and yet it reaches right to the heart of the issue in Burma, helping women in their local communities to make a real difference. There is much more that I would like to say, but time prevents that.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

David Burrowes will be followed by Mr Shannon. The Front-Bench speeches will start at 10.30 am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your convenorship, Mr Owen. I commend the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for securing the debate, and for the deeply passionate and moving way in which, through his family’s experience, he brought the situation in Burma right into the Chamber. I commend the other speakers in the debate too; there has been a strong degree of consensus, and that is something that Burma’s new parliamentarians might want to pay attention to—that sometimes, when things really matter, even those whose views come from across the political spectrum and who come from a range of backgrounds and different parts of these islands can agree on the fundamentals. I think it was the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) who reminded us that, although we must respect the right of the people of Burma to settle their own future, there are issues on which there are no borders. Whether fundamental human rights are protected or abused is a question on which national borders do not exist. We have human rights because we are human. They can and must be respected equally for all 6 billion-plus of us who share this tiny corner of the solar system.

Other hon. Members have spoken powerfully about the apparent situation—incomprehensible to us—in which the constitution gives legal protection to mass rapists but does not recognise the victims even as citizens in their own country, and gives the army the right to take power any time it sees fit. The army has an absolute veto over any attempt to change the constitution and people’s rights depend on where their grandparents or great-grandparents came from, and their choice to worship whatever deity they believe in, or not to worship. We would all see those things as deeply troubling and a sign of a seriously backward society. However, we have to try to put ourselves into the mindset of those who are handing over power. From their point of view, Burma has been through a revolution in the past 10 years or so. They see themselves as having made huge concessions to the democracy movement, and we have to understand that, and recognise that from their point of view they are already reforming at a pace that some of their supporters would see as reckless. I cannot remember which hon. Member pointed it out, but some voices are being raised in Burma to say that it is unacceptable that someone from an ethnic minority should be allowed to become vice-president. Incidentally, trying to limit someone’s worthiness for public office on the basis of their ethnic origin is not nationalism, but racism, and we should not be afraid to describe and condemn it in those terms.

Rightly, much has been said about Aung San Suu Kyi, and there is something immensely inspirational about the fact that an army that is still effectively all-powerful has to change the rules to protect itself from a 70-year-old woman who does not carry a gun. It is an example that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) has reminded us, is a shining light to all of us who believe in peaceful, democratic, lawful protest. Regardless of how powerful and well armed the forces of oppression might be, ultimately the voice of reason, reconciliation and peace will always come through. Perhaps, for those of us for whom this weekend holds particular significance, those thoughts are highly topical.

What do we want to happen next? We must continue to be a critical friend to the people of Burma and recognise that, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out, there is a generation of Members of Parliament in Burma who do not know what a Parliament is. They got elected, and had never seen what a Parliament was and how it was supposed to behave. I am not sure that I would use Prime Minister’s questions as an example of the best of the traditions to implement, but even as a severe critic of this place I think there are aspects of the way the House operates that provide a good example to Burma and elsewhere.

We must remember that probably there is no one serving in the police force in Burma who has ever known a time when the police force was there to protect people rather than oppress them; there is no one left in the Burmese army who knows what armies and soldiers are supposed to be for. That is another way in which we and others can help to set an example. I should be interested to hear from the Minister what is happening or being planned with a view to UK and other European police and military forces helping to demonstrate, to those reluctant to hand over the reins of power in Burma, that when the army returns to serving its correct purpose of protecting rather than oppressing citizens and the police go back to upholding the rule of law equally for everybody they are held in higher esteem. There is no doubt that although the army is deeply feared in Burma, while it is not particularly feared here, our soldiers are much more respected than I suspect most soldiers are in Burma. That is not because of the power of the weapons they use, but because of the restraint with which they do not use them, and because although there are sometimes incidents that cannot be defended, the military forces in the United Kingdom and most other parts of the developed world publicly condemn any abuse of power by their serving officers, and ensure that those are investigated and the culprits dealt with under the law.

It is impossible to finish my speech without referring to the appalling abuse by the Burmese army of the human rights of a generation of women and girls. There are no words that can describe the revulsion we feel at reports that a mother is forced to watch her 12-year-old daughter being gang raped by soldiers who are effectively immune from ever being held to account for their crimes. We have to make sure that those who will be in charge of the Burmese army in the near future fully understand that that kind of behaviour cannot be condoned or accepted.

[Fiona Bruce]

Would the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that it is important that small charities working at grassroots level to support women in Burma, such as the one I mentioned, HART, should be supported in turn by DFID? We need DFID to look more widely at supporting small charities that make a difference on the ground.

[Peter Grant]

I appreciate that that is a subject close to the hon. Lady’s heart. What I will say is that there are certainly occasions when organisations at arm’s length or independent from Government, which will not be seen to be interfering on behalf of another Government, are what is needed. Also, sometimes smaller organisations can be closer to the people they are trying to support. Whether their funding is best coming from DFID or elsewhere may not be for me to comment on.