Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Salaam aleikum, Madam Deputy Speaker. I join others in sending my best wishes to all those around the world observing Ramadan. As someone who struggles to observe Lent each year, I think that people’s commitment to observing Ramadan, which involves even stricter discipline, is something we can all learn from.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing the debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting such a significant length of time for it. Everyone who has spoken has made heartfelt and personal contributions, and there is a clear consensus across the Chamber on the disgraceful nature of the persecution faced by the Ahmadiyya community. I hope that we will hear positive responses from the Minister.

I pay tribute to the various all-party groups that work on this issue, some of which are represented by Members here today, as well as the organisations that have provided us with background briefings, not least the Ahmadi community and Christian Solidarity Worldwide. I will say more about this later, but I want to say at the start that I join the tributes paid to Asad Shah. It is very fitting that that dreadful outrage is specifically referenced in the motion as it is one of the most terrible examples of persecution that we have seen.

The Scottish National party is, of course, utterly opposed to religious persecution. Religious freedom is a fundamental human right, and it should be respected all around the world. We are deeply disappointed that the Pakistani Government continue to condone, and indeed oversee, some of these religiously motivated attacks, and we call on the Foreign Secretary to press the Pakistani Government to take action against such religious persecution. Reform of blasphemy laws, which has been touched on, is vital, as those laws are incompatible with the international covenant on civil and political rights to which Pakistan has committed. As we have heard, it is alarming that there appears to be increasing persecution of the Ahmadi community here in the United Kingdom, especially given the valuable contributions that the community makes to wider society and our constituencies. I want to reflect on those points in the short time available.

At the end of April, Pakistan’s Ahmadi community released a report detailing the growing hostilities that it faces, including indiscriminate arrests, impediments blocking people from voting in general elections, and the various other forms of discrimination that we have heard about. That is why it is vital that there is reform of blasphemy laws in Pakistan, and in other countries around the world that continue to keep such laws on the statute book.

In Pakistan, blasphemy against any recognised religion is illegal, with penalties ranging from a fine to death. Anyone can file a blasphemy case claiming that their religious feelings are injured for any reason. That is being applied to the Ahmadi community, whose faith is not recognised as a religion. Blasphemy laws are bad for freedom of speech, and blasphemy laws that actively ban another religion by name are really quite exceptional and a matter of serious concern. We have heard throughout the debate the impact of that—killings, attacks, and exclusion from schools and other aspects of civil society. Sadly, that has gone on for decades, dating back to at least the amendments to the constitution.

I was particularly taken aback by the fact that to apply for a passport, Pakistanis are required to sign a declaration that they consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be an impostor prophet and his followers to be non-Muslims. That is a quite astonishing thing for any holder of a religious belief to be asked. The theological and religious parallels are not identical, but it seems to be the equivalent of asking me to sign a document saying I do not recognise the authority of the Pope in the Catholic Church, which would just be astonishing.

This is very difficult to comprehend, although, as the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said, it is not so long since the blasphemy laws were taken away here. There was a form of religious persecution or discrimination in this country for many years, but we have moved beyond that, and we have to continue to hope that we can encourage other countries to do the same. As Members have said, once we start to allow some form of state-sponsored discrimination against any minority, community or faith group, there is a very real risk that this is the thin end of the wedge, and that the experience of persecution begins to be felt by other minority groups or anyone who does not subscribe to the position put forward by the state.

As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, although some of the worst and most concentrated abuse of Ahmadis is taking place in Pakistan, there is growing persecution around the world. We have heard about particularly stark examples from Indonesia, but we know of others in Bangladesh, Belarus and various other parts of the world. We have seen the same kind of thing: people being targeted for their beliefs, as well as being attacked and murdered. None of that is acceptable, and it must be called out.

I understand that Ahmadis are officially banned from entering Saudi Arabia and performing the Hajj pilgrimage. Again, I encourage Members to consider what the equivalent would be for members of Christian denominations. If they were suddenly told that they could not visit Rome or the holy places in the middle east—Jerusalem, Bethlehem and so on—what kind of a message would that send? We have to think about how that reality is experienced by the people affected.

Sadly, we have seen such persecution on our own doorstep. Several Members from Scotland have spoken about the experience of Asad Shah, as have others who have contributed to the debate. The right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) made the point—it is very true—that the root of the attack appears to have been the fact that Mr Shah was wishing his Christian customers, and his customers generally, a happy Easter. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) said, he was living out the phrase, “Love for all, hatred for none”, yet that was one of the motivating factors in his murder.

If anything positive is to be taken from that murder, it is the way in which the community has united in support of the Ahmadis in Glasgow against the kind of extremism displayed in that attack. There was an interfaith campaign, “United against Extremism”, with posters spreading a message of tolerance paid for by the various religious communities, and supported by politicians and civil society across the board. The First Minister was one of several politicians among hundreds of people who attended the vigil that was held.

At that vigil, Ahmed Owusu-Konadu, one of the leaders of the Ahmadi community in Glasgow—I know him very well, and I think every Glasgow MP has got to know him over the past few years since we were elected— called on all Muslims to condemn the killing of Shah, saying that spreading a message of intolerance was unacceptable. He and others invited the First Minister to a peace symposium in their mosque, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). At that meeting in December 2016, the First Minister said:

“The Peace Symposium demonstrates the commitment of the Ahmadiyya Community to promoting the values of peace, tolerance and understanding and is an important opportunity for us to restate our shared values and our shared aims.”

Following the incident, the Scottish Government launched a review of the suite of laws covering hate crime offences in Scotland to ensure that they remain fit for purpose in the 21st century. In launching the review, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, Annabelle Ewing, said:

“Racism, intolerance and prejudice of all kinds are a constant threat to society, and while Scotland is an open and inclusive nation, we are not immune from that threat.”

That is absolutely correct; we must have a constant vigil.

We have heard from Members on both sides of the Chamber about other incidents of intolerance and bigotry towards the Ahmadi community throughout the United Kingdom. It was worrying to hear what the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) said about the distribution at universities of leaflets calling for attacks on members of the Ahmadi community. We have also heard about the issues at Oxford University this month, and all that is a matter of great concern.

We are deeply disappointed that the Pakistani Government continue to condone and oversee the conduct of religiously motivated attacks. We call on the Foreign Secretary and Foreign Office Ministers to press the Pakistani Government to take action against religious persecution. It was in 2013 that the Foreign Office first listed Pakistan as a country of concern in relation to its human rights record, particularly due to its record on freedom of religion and belief. An update from the Minister on how the Foreign Office is acting and what representations it is continuing to make through diplomatic channels would be very welcome. What discussions are taking place at a global level through the United Nations and other forums on persecution in the middle east and other Muslim-majority countries?

It is important to hear a response from the Minister to various points made by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who is no longer in the Chamber, proposed a global ambassador for religious freedom, and I believe an equivalent has been appointed in the United States. The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) raised the issue of support for refugees, which is absolutely vital. We must be welcoming, and we must be willing to offer refuge to people who are fleeing persecution and hostility. It would be helpful to hear about some of the recommendations made by Christian Solidarity Worldwide and others, including the action that could be taken in Indonesia and elsewhere that was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. It would also be useful to know what steps the Government are taking to monitor and tackle the rising violence in the UK and to promote solidarity with the Ahmadi community, and what steps they are willing to take to work with the devolved Administrations in promoting such tolerance.

I want to reflect, as other Members have, on the contribution that the community makes to my own constituency. I have had the pleasure of interacting with Glasgow’s Ahmadi community since the 2015 election. We paid tribute to former Members earlier, and it is right to pay tribute to the former Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, Margaret Ferrier. Even since the 2017 election, she has continued to be a champion for the Ahmadi community, standing in solidarity with people, supporting their campaigns and attending their events. She contributed greatly to the all-party group on the Ahmadiyya Muslim community when she was in the House and, indeed, to similar debates in the Chamber.

Much as in the other communities that we have heard about, the community in Glasgow has responded incredibly. In spite of and in the face of violence and persecution, people respond, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, with peace, love and tolerance. They are actively involved in their community, which shows what a positive contribution can be made. They organise an annual fun run in Glasgow—the money often goes to the children’s hospital in Glasgow—as well as litter picks, and they make space in their mosque available for wider community events. They hold peace symposiums, many of which I have had the privilege of attending. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, we are always guaranteed a memorable catering experience when we take part in them.

That experience stands in stark and welcome contrast to the violence and persecution that the community is experiencing, sadly, in the UK and around the world. As other Members have said, the phrase “Love for all, hatred for none” is not simply a slogan; it is a way of being, and a philosophy that permeates every aspect of the community’s life. It also reflects the golden rule in other religions, such as, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Governments who seek to persecute minorities ought to reflect on that, especially if they themselves are doing so in the name of a religion, because there is not a single global religion that, in its purest form, condones or accepts the violence and persecution we are seeing.

Tolerance is absolutely key, and we must speak out because, as other Members have said, if we allow blasphemy laws, persecution or intolerance towards one set of minorities, the risk is that other minorities and indeed larger groups may be affected as well, with the risk of increasing persecution of others and growing intolerance of all kinds. That is what we must unite against, and that is what has been shown by today’s debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and it has been raised specifically with me by our friends in the south Pacific that they want to see the UK back there. A head of an island there described to me his sense of grief at seeing a vacant UK seat at a recent meeting—I will not name the country in which the meeting took place. We are filling that seat; we will be back there in all the countries that I have just announced.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I do not know whether “Fox and Friends” has broadcast in any Commonwealth countries, but can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether appearing on breakfast TV is now an official part of UK diplomatic foreign policy, or is it reserved only for countries with which we have a special relationship?

[Boris Johnson]

I cannot comment on whether “Fox and Friends” is broadcast across the Commonwealth, but what I will say is that we should use every possible means at our disposal to reach out to our friends not just in the Commonwealth, but in the former Commonwealth—the United States of America.

Draft European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere and the European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2018

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 General Committees

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma.

The Scottish National party has no objections to the statutory instrument. We recognise the importance of the space industry to the UK economy and, indeed, my constituency and the city of Glasgow play an important part in it. The University of Glasgow recently played an important role in the discovery of gravitational waves. It is important for scientists and researchers to be able to travel and benefit from the appropriate amenities.

As to what the Minister said about the European Space Agency being autonomous in relation to the EU, and there being no Brexit impact, I want to press him a little for reassurance that the arrangements being put in place today will be future-proofed against potential fallout from Brexit, in relation to freedom of movement or people’s ability to travel. Maintaining a strong relationship with such European agencies will become even more important in the light of Brexit.

Libyan-sponsored IRA Terrorism

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I know that we want to hear from the Minister, so I will be as brief as I can be. I congratulate the hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate, especially after the Westminster Hall debate in December 2017. Once again we have heard a range of very powerful contributions by Members who have constituents directly affected by this. What we have heard from all of them is that we are dealing with a question of justice and that there is a very real danger that justice delayed will become justice denied.

The Gaddafi regime at the time accepted that it shared some responsibility for the damage caused to so many lives by the IRA bombings. As we have heard, those affected from other countries have been able to secure compensation, but repeated delays by successive UK Governments have meant that the families and victims, maimed and devastated, are still waiting. That is despite the fact that a range of options has been put forward over the years. The proposal in today’s motion and in the Bill that has been promoted by Lord Empey and is now being introduced in this House provide a solution. If the Government are not willing to accept that, they should explain clearly why and put forward a viable alternative.

We have to hope that any decision made on the matter of compensation for victims is undertaken with the utmost sensitivity and with respect to the privacy and dignity of the victims’ families. I pay tribute to the campaigners, some of whom we have heard about and some of whom I have received correspondence from—as all Members have. They all point out how time is passing. It is 20 years since the Good Friday agreement, and 10 years since the US Libyan Claims Resolution Act 2008. How long do these families have to wait for a resolution? If the UK Government fail to act on behalf of their citizens where it is possible to do so, they will have done an enormous and shameful disservice to the legacy of the victims of those terrorist acts. We heard from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that these acts do provide humanitarian grounds for the Government to take action.

There is a range of different proposals and options available to the Government. Of course we have to respect that the situation in Libya is difficult and that there are diplomatic and legal processes that have to happen. As I said in Westminster Hall, we probably have to reflect on the Government’s role in the current situation in Libya. The fact is that they have spent considerably more money bombing Libya than they have ever done on trying to rebuild the country and bring about a stable settlement that would allow for negotiations to take place. But the idea that the families themselves should negotiate directly with the Libyan authorities is pretty concerning. It is difficult enough for the Government to do so, and these families are entitled to representation from their own Government. I am very keen to hear the Government’s response to the proposed Bill and to other suggestions. If they do not take those ideas, what opportunities do they see? Why do they think that families should otherwise be left to fend for themselves?

We have heard the Government say that they have to consider what support they need to offer victims of other terrorist attacks. I am in complete agreement with that. In fact, I led an Adjournment debate in this House on Foreign and Commonwealth Office support for victims of terrorism overseas. I have been visited by constituents who were caught up in Stockholm and in Tunisia. They were looking for basic and simple support from the Government, but found the Government lacking.

As part of my work with those people, I visited the Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Peace Centre in Warrington, which was set up in the memory of two young victims of the IRA bombing. It was one of the most moving experiences I have had as a Member of Parliament. The centre does fantastic work with victims of terrorist attacks—wherever those attacks happened and whatever the cause—and in bringing about reconciliation. Those support services should be extended to everyone who has fallen victim to a terrorist attack of some shape or form. And there will only be more. In a sense, all of us who were present in this Chamber last year were witnesses to terror visited upon Westminster.

The question of compensation is obviously more complicated, but in this instance there are clear opportunities and proposals to provide compensation, which has been awarded in other countries because of the efforts of those Governments. Now is the time for the Government to act. We have had a Select Committee report and a Westminster Hall debate. Today, we are having a debate on the Floor of the House, in which we have heard powerful testimonies from Members. Surely it is time for the Government to listen, to take action and, as all of us have said, to ensure that these victims get the justice they deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

Very much so. I have been struck by the initiatives within the OECD, which is a 35-member strong organisation, with another half dozen countries wishing to join it. There is a recognition that global trade requires a sense of global protocols, and I think that that would apply to the overseas territories just as much as it does to the OECD’s existing members.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on funding for the diplomatic service after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

I am delighted that, as a result of conversations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was able last week to announce the creation of 250 new diplomatic positions and 10 new sovereign posts, which means that for the first time in years this country has the most sovereign posts of any European diplomatic service, and more than France.

[Patrick Grady]

I wonder whether the Secretary of State can tell us how many of those diplomats are going to be stationed in far-off places such as Camden. More specifically, will he tell us how many are going to be stationed in Brussels and how much these new unelected Brussels bureaucrats are going to cost the public purse?

Future of the Commonwealth

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will do the best I can in the four minutes available.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing the debate. In the last Parliament, I was a vice-chair of the all-party group on the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, I missed its annual general meeting this year, but it does good work, and he can be assured of my support for it. I also served on the executive of the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which is one example of the many organisations he spoke about that are brought together by the Commonwealth and help to facilitate its various aims.

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the Commonwealth’s good work on tackling malaria and about sight and vision. We had the Commonwealth Development Corporation at the all-party group on Malawi not that long ago. The opportunity for co-operation there is very important.

At the same time, it is important not to get misty-eyed. CHOGM gives us the opportunity to look at whether the Commonwealth’s options for the future are challenges, opportunities or both. The concept of the Commonwealth is not unrelated to the old Scots concept of the common weal. Of course, it is the Scottish National party’s ambition for Scotland one day to become an independent member of the Commonwealth in its own right. The very definition of an independent country is how it relates to and co-operates with other independent states. I note that 31 members of the Commonwealth have a population of 1.5 million or less, and no one seems to argue that they are too small or poor to be independent, or that they need to come back to the bosom of mother Britannia.

Scotland already enjoys special status in the Commonwealth. We participate in the Commonwealth games, and we have hosted them—in Edinburgh in 1970 and 1986, and in Glasgow in 2014—and I am proudly wearing the demure and sober 2014 Commonwealth games tartan. The legacy of the Commonwealth games in host cities is another advantage of the organisation. It is notable that venues are refurbished and brought back to life, which contrasts with the grandiose venues that are sometimes constructed for Olympic games.

Scotland also has a relationship with Malawi, and today I welcomed the honourable Juliana Lunguzi, MP for Dedza East, to the House. I thoroughly agree with the idea of improved visas for India, but that should be extended across the Commonwealth. Far too often, people from Commonwealth countries, including politicians, do not have their visas granted in time. That happens time and again with Malawi.

CHOGM presents a number of questions and opportunities. If the Commonwealth is to continue to be a force for good, members must be willing to be frank with one another. That means there are opportunities to press for action on human rights—particularly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights—remembering that some of the oppressive laws in Commonwealth countries are a legacy of empire.

The question of the head of the Commonwealth is clearly under discussion, too. Even if the ceremonial head remains the monarch, perhaps there is a way of democratising the choice of the secretary-general and involving the Parliaments of member countries in that decision. On future membership—I was going to say that I joked about Scotland, but I did not; I am very serious about Scotland—there is a question about whether Ireland might come back in. We have welcomed Irish observers at recent CPA events—although, given Ireland’s record in the rugby, I am not sure whether we want its participation in the Commonwealth games.

Trade is vital. We must remember that 52 of 54 Commonwealth countries make up only 9% of our exports. As the hon. Member for Gloucester said, the Commonwealth is not a trading bloc per se, and Canada already has a deal with the EU, so we must be careful about how that is taken forward.

There is an opportunity not for misty-eyed, rose-tinted harking back to the past but for building a 21st-century organisation looking at human rights and democracy.

International Court of Justice

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly valid point. One of the recommendations in our report is that the FCO’s lessons learned report should come before the Committee, even on a private basis, so the Committee can be assured that this was a cock-up and not something wider. However, I draw his attention to the fact that the Foreign Office has used this process for a number of successful elections in previous years. Had the diminishing vote in the General Assembly been brought to the Foreign Secretary’s attention sooner, it may or may not have helped, depending on whether or not the Foreign Secretary may or may not help those particular processes. However, the hon. Gentleman’s points will be taken back to the Committee and used in future reports.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

This is a blow to our international influence, and certainly to any notion of empire 2.0. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that kind of language and attitude is perhaps a contributing factor to these decisions, including the decision to refer the Chagos islands case to the ICJ? Does the Committee intend to look into whether our lack of a judge on the ICJ may have any influence on its decision on the Chagos islands case? From my point of view, restoring the islanders’ right to return would be welcome.

[Ian Murray]

The Chagos islands issue is not mentioned directly in the report, although it is used as an example of where the UK has taken votes to the UN in recent times and lost. It is clear that not being on the ICJ diminishes the UK’s voice on making sensible decisions at the UN. One of the report’s conclusions is that the real difficulty is not directly the loss of a judge on the ICJ but in how we get a judge back on to the ICJ. Incumbency is a special thing in being able to promote a future election. Indeed, not being the incumbent will make it much more difficult next time.

Suspicious Deaths Abroad

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I very much look forward to working cross-party on this issue, which transcends party political boundaries. We can all work constructively to bring about change.

We want to know what more the FCO can do to assure people like Julie’s and Kirsty’s families that, where a police investigation is not being properly executed, it will make representations and put pressure on the authorities to investigate properly, or invite the police from the nations of the UK to help, as was rightly done, as we all remember, in the case of Madeleine McCann. No one expects them to promise to fix it, but more attempts can be made. I feel very strongly that not enough has changed for the families I represent since the report.

We have heard of many other cases from constituents. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) has a constituent, Julie Love, who has done a huge amount of work on this issue following the death of her son Colin, who died in a swimming accident in Venezuela. She successfully campaigned to have the law changed in Scotland on fatal accident inquiries.

The correspondence with the Government on both of my constituency cases has uncovered some concerning points.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. She is being incredibly generous with her time. I, too, pay tribute to the amazing work of Julie Love, and the determination with which she fought for that change in the law. Indeed, our fellow colleagues Anne McLaughlin and Bob Doris, the local MSP, helped her with that. My hon. Friend makes a point about the need for the FCO to listen carefully and to respond. The expectations people have of their own Government’s representation in foreign countries very often does not match their experiences. I have also dealt with constituents who have survived terrorist attacks. They, too, found that the service they received from the FCO did not match their expectations. I therefore wish my hon. Friend all the best with what she is taking forward.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank my hon. Friend. It is a testament to the police services of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland that they do have the highest standards. I know, from talking to a very senior police officer, the level of support received by the families of foreign nationals who die in Scotland. She spoke to me about how they took the family of a loved one who had been killed in a road traffic accident to the site and how they had been given support every step of the way. Rightly, our citizens expect a high level of service because they get a high level of service across the UK.

On 11 August 2016, in response to my letter about Julie Pearson, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), stated:

“The FCO does not translate formal documents because this type of support is best provided by independent professionals and we do not have the funding or the expertise to provide such specialist services... The FCO also does not pay legal costs so could not contribute towards any case Ms Pearson’s family may wish to initiate in Israel.”

I understand that. That is a very fair point, but it raises the question about translation services and what more can be done in that regard.

On 7 February 2017, the Prime Minister said in response to a letter:

“I fully understand why you believe improvements can be made to the way in which the Government provides support to the relatives of British nationals who die abroad... The Government has a responsibility to help them through the subsequent process with clarity and compassion.”

Even the Prime Minster recognises that there are flaws and issues with the FCO’s support and processes when dealing with deaths abroad in suspicious circumstances. I wonder whether the Minister would like to take the opportunity to apologise to the families who have been let down. I and other Members and campaigners on this issue have been inundated with stories and experiences of the families of British citizens who have died in difficult and distressing circumstances abroad.

As I said at the beginning, I have the highest regard for the Minister, for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and for the consular profession and the work that they do in some of the hardest and toughest circumstances. However, it is clear to me from the experiences of Kirsty’s and Julie’s families that they deserve better, and for the families and constituents of Members across this House, we need to make sure that there is a review of support and proper action to ensure that the processes and protocols are absolutely the best that families can expect.

In memory of those who have died and to protect and prevent future distress, I plead with the Minister: let us work together to help the families who are suffering now and to change the system. We owe it to them and to the memory of those who have died to make sure that the services that are offered abroad to our citizens are the very best that they can be and that our citizens get, where possible, proper investigations into such deaths, and answers and justice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight a particular example that illustrates the challenges faced by girls around the world. The UK Government have demonstrated significant leadership on this issue as a way of progressing peace and development around the world, and are urging all parties to the conflict in Yemen to make a political solution.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

3. Whether he has had discussions with his French counterpart on the construction of a new fixed link across the channel.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)]

At the conclusion of the highly successful Anglo-French summit, it was indeed agreed that a committee of wise people, or “comité des sages”, should be established to look at reviving the great tradition of UK-France collaboration in such matters as security, defence, space, genomics, infrastructure, and indeed, infrastructure projects, such as the idea of a new connection between our two countries—an idea, I can tell the House, that was warmly welcomed both by my counterpart, Mr Jean-Yves Le Drian, and by President Macron himself.

[Patrick Grady]

I note that the Foreign Secretary did not say whether he would be on this committee of wise people. He will be aware of the warning from Maritime UK and many others that the channel ports face gridlock if a transition arrangement for Brexit is not put in place urgently. What is the point of a 20-mile bridge if there is going to be a 20-mile queue waiting to get on to it?

[Boris Johnson]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on crowbarring Brexit into that question. Most people appreciate that the existing channel tunnel is likely, at the current rate, to be full within the next seven years, which is a very short time in the lifetime of a great infrastructure project. It is a curiosity that two of the most powerful economies in the world, separated by barely 21 miles of water, are connected by only one railway line. I think that is a matter for legitimate reflection by our two countries on the way forward.

Palestinian Children and Israeli Military Detention

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate all Members who have contributed to the debate, and especially the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on her powerful and detailed speech. I will leave the Minister as much time as possible to respond to her concerns.

As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) pointed out, this issue is of huge concern to many of our constituents. We are dealing with basic questions about the rights of the child and the importance of the global conventions that govern them, as well as with specific questions about the role and actions of the Israeli Government.

The SNP condemns the arrest, detention and prosecution of Palestinian children by the Israeli Government, and we are deeply concerned about the increase in the number of children who have been detained as a result of the escalation of tensions in the territory. Estimates for the number of cases vary, but they are clearly into the hundreds, and the reports of people’s experiences—night arrests, strip searches, blindfolds—are extremely concerning, as are reports of children being denied access to due legal process and lawyers. As the hon. Member for Rotherham said when opening this debate, such treatment is unacceptable on a basic human level, even before considering conventions and international human rights obligations.

[Colin Clark]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Patrick Grady]

I am not giving way.

Israel has ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child and the optional protocol on children and armed conflict, but it has been slow to incorporate the principles and provisions of the convention into its domestic legal system. In 2013, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child was clear that Israeli actions constituted

“violations of the rights of Palestinian children and their families, feed the cycle of humiliation and violence and jeopardise a peaceful and stable future for all children of the region.”

Constituents have raised with me the specific case of Ahed Tamimi, and the hon. Members for Rotherham, for Hendon (Dr Offord) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) all spoke about that case in different ways. In some ways that shows why this case has become symbolic—perhaps even metaphoric—for the broader conflict. It involves well-resourced, heavily armed and armoured soldiers on one hand, and, on the other hand a young, unarmed girl who is causing a bit of a nuisance and slapping those soldiers about. That has ended in her arrest, and the polarised views that that has caused. I agree that violence never solves anything, but a relatively minor incident has spiralled into something much bigger and triggered many further consequences and polarised perspectives.

Amnesty International, and others, are clear that the treatment of Ahed does not respect her human rights or fulfil Israel’s obligations under the UNCRC. Indeed, Amnesty says that nothing she has done can justify her continued detention, and it has called for her immediate release. It is clear from my mailbag, and from Members who have spoken in this debate, that the public want action from the UK Government, and for them to use their influence to call for action by the Israeli Government. I know the Minister does his best, and we are not expecting him to resolve a conflict that has been going on for decades, but it is important that the Government condemn in the strongest possible terms the mistreatment of children all around the world. They should also guarantee that UK funds will not support the military detention, interrogation, abuse or ill-treatment of Palestinian children. What dialogue are the Government having with the Government of Israel about how they intend to incorporate their obligations under the conventions into domestic law? More specifically, how will the Israeli Government take forward the recommendations in the various reports that have been referred to?

The SNP accepts that the Palestinian conflict is complex, and there are real sensitivities on all sides. However, the rights of the child are enshrined in international law and convention, and as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) said—these days I do not see her on the train heading south as often as I used to—children are the victims of conflict, not parties to it. The rights and dignity of children in conflict must be upheld and protected.

Some Members asked about children involved in conflicts elsewhere in the world. Of course we should look at that, and if Members want to secure a debate on the human rights situation in other countries, I know that other Members—I have taken part in enough such debates—will speak out and condemn the situation in those countries.

The Government of Israel have a duty to live up to the protocols and conventions they have signed, and if progress is to be made in reaching a peaceful solution, surely a starting point must include taking children out of the equation. It is clear that there is a global public outcry against the detention of Palestinian children by the Israeli Government. The Israeli Government must act, and the UK Government must use their influence to help bring that about.