India’s Foreign Contribution Law: NGOs

Debate between Afzal Khan and Stephen Timms

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. It seems clear that the FCRA is being used to make life difficult for organisations that from time to time might be critical of the Government. In 2016, a commission appointed by the UN Human Rights Council called for the repeal of the Act, but in 2020 it was tightened up even further on the grounds of bringing greater accountability.

Of course, what is happening to NGOs is part of a wider pattern in India. We all grew up thinking of India as the greatest democracy on the planet. The briefing for this debate from the all-party parliamentary human rights group is absolutely right to refer to

“India’s rich tradition and constitutional status as a secular democracy.”

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I was simply stunned when the reputable organisation Amnesty was forced to close its office in India. The suffocation of minority rights and the lack of freedom of expression has also been illustrated by the ongoing conflict in Kashmir, the farmers’ protest and the persecution of minorities, as has been mentioned, including the Christians and the Dalits. Today, Mohammed Yasin Malik and other leaders have been sentenced to life, and their only crime is wanting freedom from Indian illegal occupation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that India is a diminishing democracy?

[Stephen Timms]

I do agree with that. The situation is very worrying. I remember vividly the pride of Muslim constituents with roots in India, their home country, when I was first elected, but that has all drastically changed. There have been new laws to make things difficult specifically for Muslim citizens. Our Prime Minister’s state visit to India last month took place against a backdrop of inter-religious violence in Delhi and the demolition of Muslim-owned buildings.

The Christian charity, Open Doors, which launches its watchlist every year in Parliament, now designates India as the tenth worst country in the world in which to be a Christian. It has been sliding down other indices as well. It is ranked 150 out of 180 countries in the latest World Press Freedom index. Freedom House ranked India as only “partly free” in its Freedom in the World report this year, noting that:

The constitution guarantees civil liberties including freedom of expression and freedom of religion, but harassment of journalists…NGOs…and other government critics has increased significantly”.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s latest Democracy Index categorises India as a “flawed democracy”. Civicus, the Johannesburg-headquartered global civil society alliance, categorises Indian civil society as “repressed”, which is the second worst category in its ranking, having downgraded in 2019. Not one of those indices proves there is a problem, but the overall message that they all convey is unmistakable.

The 2020 changes to the FCRA have effectively banned NGOs from research, advocacy and campaigning. They have also created new bureaucratic and practical hurdles, a ban on NGOs transferring funds to other NGOs, other restrictions on fund distribution, a cap on administrative costs, and delays from the necessity of additional form filling. It is claimed that all of that is to strengthen transparency and accountability, but it is fairly clear that the Government are targeting charities and non-profits that question their policies. Will the Minister urge the Indian authorities to review carefully the FCRA for compliance with international human rights standards and to suspend aspects of the law that restrict charities from providing urgently needed relief?

The Centre for Promotion of Social Concerns is a prominent human rights organisation in India. It lost its licence under the FCRA in 2016. The Ministry of Home Affairs said that was on the basis of a field agency report. The group challenged the decision in the High Court and, in the Ministry’s evidence to the court, it complained that the organisation used foreign funding to pass information to United Nations special rapporteurs and to foreign embassies, that that was

“portraying India’s human rights record in negative light…to the detriment of India’s image”,

and that such acts were

“undesirable activities detrimental to national interest”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) was right to draw attention to Amnesty International being forced to put an end to its covid support. The head of Amnesty International India said at the time:

“Even if you’re working on Covid, the law makes it very difficult for you to be able to even accept foreign aid coming in without being in violation of the law”.

Greenpeace, too, has lost its licence. The Ford Foundation has been suspended. NGOs from other overseas countries are telling their own Governments how hard this is making things for them.

Oxfam—I started with this case—has been sending help to India since 1951. Oxfam India became a fully Indian organisation in 2008. Today, it is one of the country’s largest NGOs, providing food, shelter, clothing, medicine and medical equipment. It was reaching more than 1.5 million people, but has now lost its FCRA licence, so that number will be reduced drastically. Oxfam India applied to renew its licence on 1 April last year, in good time, but it appears that the application was rejected on 15 December, although the organisation has received no official communication from the Indian Government about that decision. Now, it can only raise resources within India, but its previous income was 75% made up of foreign aid. A lot of staff will lose their jobs, and crucial humanitarian and social work has ended.

In the five years after the current Indian Government first took office in 2014, more than 14,000 NGOs were barred from accessing foreign funding, seemingly mainly to hamper criticism of Government policies. Nearly 6,000 did not have their FCRA licences renewed last year. One notable organisation affected, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out in his intervention, was the Missionaries of Charity, founded by Mother Teresa. It was blocked from accessing international funding on the grounds of “adverse inputs”, but nobody knows what that means, or what the problem with Mother Teresa’s charity was thought to be. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the decision has been reversed, which at least suggests that external pressure can help to deliver renewal of an FCRA licence.

Oxfam India applied well before the deadline. No reasons for the refusal were given, simply a statement that the decision had been taken in the “public interest”, but one of the problems is that the FCRA definition of

“activities prejudicial to the public interest”

is extremely vague. Will the Minister seek from the Indian Government an explanation of why Oxfam India’s activities are regarded as

“not in the public interest”?

Oxfam India has now filed a petition to the Indian Government for a final administrative review. There has as yet been no response.

On 10 February, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, Sir Matthew Rycroft, raised this issue with his counterpart at the Indian Home Ministry. In response to my written question, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), said on 17 May:

“The Permanent Secretary addressed the difficulties that some NGOs in India have faced due to the enforcement of the FCRA, which is impacting both on the work we are funding and the work of UK-headquartered global NGOs in India.”

I very much welcome the permanent secretary’s intervention on this issue, but as I understand it, the Indian Government have given no assurances at all about whether these cases will be reviewed. There is clearly a lot more to do. In answering my question, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said that the UK continues

“to monitor developments related to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, especially impacts on UK Government-funded programmes in India, and the work of British NGOs in India.”

However, we need more than monitoring. I am sure the Minister will agree with me about the negative impact of the FCRA, and I ask her and her colleagues to press the Indian authorities to review the legislation and lift some of the restrictions. They should also press for greater transparency of FCRA licence determination.

I will finish with the words of Amitabh Behar—the chief executive of Oxfam India, whom I met on a recent Zoom seminar—about what is happening in India. He told the BBC:

“The Ministry of Home Affairs’ decision to deny renewal of FCRA registration will severely hamper these collaborations which were providing relief to those who needed it the most during times of crisis.”

I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that Her Majesty’s Government recognise the importance of this issue, and that the influence of her Department will be brought to bear in order to promote freedom of expression, even where it makes Governments uncomfortable at times.

Draft Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Afzal Khan and Stephen Timms

Monday 18th March 2019 General Committees

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

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

Labour opposes the draft regulations on four grounds. First, they will make changes to 21 separate pieces of primary legislation—something that should rightly be done through primary legislation. The Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, which has just come out of Committee, was surely the perfect vehicle for any necessary changes to primary legislation before exit day. Putting those changes into a Bill would have allowed more time for hon. Members to scrutinise exactly what they will mean for each of the Acts affected, and to table amendments if necessary. We accept that many of the changes are technical, but they could easily have been spelled out in the Bill and nodded through in Committee.

Our second reason for opposing the draft regulations is that on the Bill Committee we spent a lot of time talking about how chaotic and disorganised the current immigration rules are. They are almost impossible for immigration lawyers, judges and Home Office officials to understand, let alone the average person applying for a visa without the help of legal aid. The point of supplementary scrutiny is not just to criticise the Government, but to consider and improve what they are doing. More chances for scrutiny would avoid contradictory rules and bad laws.

Thirdly, the draft instrument puts the cart before the horse. We do not yet know whether the immigration Bill will become law, as it faces significant hurdles before Report in the Commons and has not yet been through the Lords. This statutory instrument makes changes for a post-Brexit immigration landscape that is not yet assured.

Finally, the statutory instrument revokes the Dublin III regulation, which determines which EU member state is responsible for returning an asylum claim.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend raises the question of the Dublin agreement. Is it his understanding, as it is mine, that a significant number of families who can currently be reunited thanks to that regulation could no longer be if there were no deal and we were to exit on the basis of the SI before the Committee?

Acid Attacks

Debate between Afzal Khan and Stephen Timms

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman and his constituent. Katie Piper, an acid attack survivor and founder of the Katie Piper Foundation, which supports victims, has said:

“Tougher sentencing would surely act as a deterrent to further attacks”,

and I agree with her. We need greater consistency in sentencing as well.

I hope that the review announced by the Home Secretary will be carried out quickly, because we need urgent action, and I hope that in her response to the debate, the Minister will be able to tell us about the envisaged timescale.

I want to say a little more about the two specific points that I raised earlier. First, carrying acid without good reason should be a criminal offence, as carrying a knife is already. Of course, there are wholly legitimate reasons for obtaining acid, as there are for obtaining a knife, but we do not want people carrying them around the streets.

The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 has created a minimum custodial sentence for those aged 16 and over convicted of a second or subsequent offence of possession of a knife or offensive weapon. The sentence for an offender aged 18 or above is at least six months imprisonment when convicted, and that for 16 and 17 year olds is a detention order of at least four months. Comparable sentences for possession of acid could combat the apparently growing idea that it is a safe weapon for gang members and others wanting to commit violent crimes.

Secondly, a licence should be required for the purchase of sulphuric acid. Some have complained that that would be an excessive, knee-jerk response, but actually it has been proposed by the British Retail Consortium, whose members have agreed voluntarily to stop selling sulphuric acid products. It points out that, under the Control of Poisons and Explosive Precursor Regulations 2015—which amended the Poisons Act 1972 and were intended to restrict supply of items that could be used to cause an explosion—sulphuric acid is already covered but under the lesser “reportable substance” category. Its proposal is that sulphuric acid should be promoted to the “regulated substance” category so that a licence would be required to purchase it. Regulated substances require an explosives precursors and poisons licence. A member of the public needs to show a valid licence and associated photo identification before making a purchase.

The proposal is supported not only by members of the British Retail Consortium, but by the Association of Convenience Stores, which says:

“We support legislative action under the Explosive Precursors Regulations 2014; for example, reclassifying sulphuric acid from Reportable Substance to Regulated Substance. This will provide retailers clarity and certainty on their obligations for products which contain sulphuric acid.”

It is significant that the shopkeepers themselves are asking for that chance.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The whole country has rightly been shocked by the recent acid attacks in London and the increased number of such attacks throughout the country. Many constituents have contacted me because they are horrified by what has been happening and feel that action needs to be taken. It is also important that we acknowledge the bravery of Resham Khan and her cousin, Jameel Mukhtar, in coming forward and sharing their experience so that we can discuss it here. I hope that the Minister will listen to both of my right hon. Friend’s suggestions, which I fully support.

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree with him on both points. I particularly endorse his point about the revulsion and wave of anxiety created by this spate of attacks. As well as shop sales, the issue of online sales will need to be addressed, including of substances other than sulphuric acid.