Afghanistan: FCDO Update
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Chris Law. Ah, not here. Brendan O’Hara.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
An easy mistake to make, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Spirit Aid, the charity founded by the Scottish actor David Hayman, currently has doctors, teachers and others, and their families, stranded in Afghanistan. On 25 August, 28 August and again on 3 September, I contacted the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. I have no idea whether those emails have even been opened. Will the Secretary of State commit to open the emails and read the names of the people on those lists? When will he be in a position to tell me and, more importantly, those terrified people in Afghanistan exactly where they stand?
Dominic Raab
I explained why there was a backlog of emails; it was partly due to the surge of new contact that we received in the narrowing window of the evacuation and the decision consciously to focus on the resource of getting people on to the flights. However, as has already been said before the House, we will make sure that we give a response to all the hon. Members’ emails that we have received by close of play today, with the relevant triaging and signposting to the specific Department that is processing that type of claim.
Palestinian School Textbooks: EU Review
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]
It is pleasure to see you in the Chair for this morning’s debate, Dame Angela.
As many hon. Members have said, this is not the first time that this issue has been discussed in the House. In the past 20 years, there have been accusations of widespread antisemitism and incitement to violence and hatred contained in Palestinian school textbooks. They have been repeatedly raised by pressure groups and politicians, so it was right that the European Union, being understandably vigilant, should ask the independent Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research to carry out a study of the issue.
Despite highlighting some legitimate areas of concern, the Eckert report says that, while still not perfect, the changes recently made to the curriculum show that the Palestinian Authority are heading in the right direction, and the report significantly tempers some of the wilder accusations and allegations that we have heard from certain quarters about the PA routinely using the curriculum to incite violence and hatred or promote antisemitism. Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, the Eckert report concludes that
“the textbooks adhere to UNESCO standards and adopt criteria that are prominent in international education discourse, including a strong focus on human rights”.
In terms of antisemitism, the report specifically mentions two examples, both of which were deemed to be and were rightly condemned as antisemitic. They should never have been there, and it is absolutely right that both have now been positively altered as the report says, or removed completely from the latest editions of the books—a fact recognised by the Georg Eckert Institute.
Let me be clear: we in the SNP believe that wherever antisemitism is found, it must be called out and condemned absolutely and unequivocally. There must be zero tolerance of antisemitism and we must all be vigilant in guarding against it. Although not complacent in any way, I am reassured that in the context of Palestinian school textbooks, the Eckert report says that, while there is recognition of the long-standing political and military conflict, antisemitism does not seem to be as widespread as was first feared, there are signs of improvement and it does not appear to be the endemic problem that some would have us believe.
As I said, the Eckert report does identify other areas of concern, but when addressing whether the textbooks are guilty of promoting or glorifying violence, it says that although there are “escalatory” examples in the textbooks, it did not find that, in the context of a region where, for the best part of a century, there has been active armed conflict, the depiction of the “other side” in the school textbooks as an aggressor or as violent necessarily equated to that igniting hatred. Indeed, the report goes on to say that it is important to acknowledge that such indicators are generally very rare and that there are also numerous instances of the school textbooks calling for tolerance, mercy, forgiveness and justice.
As we have heard, one of the main sources of the allegations is the Israeli organisation IMPACT-se, the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education, a self-described
“research, policy and advocacy organization”,
whose main aim appears to be to lobby parliamentarians and media outlets across Europe and the United States to, I would argue, exaggerate and amplify these claims in order to get them on to the political agenda—rather successfully, it would appear. Let us be in no doubt about IMPACT-se. On page 15 of the Eckert report, it says that IMPACT-se research is
“marked by generalising and exaggerated conclusions based on methodological shortcomings.”
It recommends that any future IMPACT-se investigation be based on a
“comprehensive examination of the textbooks, contextualising the specific passages”
that it uses, as well as recognising those elements within the textbooks that
“promote tolerance and peaceful coexistence.”
Of course, as we have heard, IMPACT-se has form. The shortcomings of its methodology and its lack of objectivity have been commented on before in this House. As recently as September 2017 in a written answer, the ever honest and hugely respected former Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt said that the Government were sufficiently concerned at what an earlier IMPACT-se report had alleged about Palestinian textbooks to decide to meet with it to discuss its findings. However, the UK Government in 2017 concluded that the IMPACT-se report was not objective in its findings and its methodology lacked rigour, before observing that
“some claims were made on the basis of a partial or subjective reading of the text”
and
“some findings are presented out of context”.
Yet, immediately on publication of the Georg Eckert Institute’s lengthy and nuanced report last week, IMPACT-se was straight out of the blocks, telling anyone who would listen that the report supported its claim that
“the Palestinian Authority systematically incites…a million children to antisemitism, hate and violence every school day.”
It is a ridiculous analysis of a serious report and one that probably tells us more about IMPACT-se and how it operates than anything else. Although it is perfectly legitimate to disagree with the findings of the Eckert report—I am sure that all sides will find plenty to argue about—what is not acceptable is to deliberately distort and twist what the report says. I find it deeply concerning that such a brazenly partisan group is still being listened to and is still able to find such an unquestioning audience.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, he will reassure the House that the UK Government still consider IMPACT-se not to be a trusted source of reliable information and, its having been so discredited for the inaccuracies and inadequacies in its research, no UK Government funding will go towards that group.
We have heard many times this morning that anti-Palestinian groups have been raising in the contents of these books for years. As the Eckert report makes clear, there are areas of legitimate concern and some important changes are needed. However, attempts to portray Palestinians as somehow uniquely hateful and violent are utterly nonsensical. Ironically, those making them have been engaging in exactly the same sort of demonisation and distortion that they allege of the Palestinian textbooks.
We could go through the Eckert report line by line, arguing over every last dot and comma but, as other Members have said this morning, there is a much bigger picture here: the continued illegal occupation of Palestine, which is now in its sixth decade. I just wish that those parliamentarians most vocal about the content of Palestinian children’s school textbooks were as vocal about the destruction of Palestinian children’s schools.
I have seen the ruins of a Palestinian school. I have walked among the rubble of the demolished school buildings of the Bedouin village of Abu Nuwar. I have seen the pain, the fear, and the devastation that the demolition of a school causes for an already weak, poor and defenceless community. I cannot help but wonder where the outrage on the Benches opposite is when Palestinian schools are demolished by the Israeli army in order to make way for more illegal settlements? Why are they so silent when Palestinian children are being killed, beaten, arrested and detained without trial? Often their homes are being bulldozed. Where is the condemnation and outrage about the 66 Palestinian children who were killed, or the 600 who were injured during the bombardment of Gaza? Where are the debates and demands for action about the 141 schools in Gaza that were damaged, or the 53 schools in the west bank that have been earmarked for demolition?
Perhaps we would pay greater heed to the howls of protest from the Benches opposite about the content of Palestinian children’s schoolbooks if they were equally vociferous in calling out the outrageous human rights abuses that those same Palestinian schoolchildren face every single day of their young lives.
Official Development Assistance and the British Council
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]
The decision by this Government to take essential, life-saving money away from the world’s poorest people is absolutely shameful. The fact that the Government of one of the richest countries in the world have decided arbitrarily to reduce the help that they give to the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet, particularly in the middle of a global health pandemic, simply beggars belief. It must be the final abandonment of what little was left of the UK’s reputation for moral leadership.
The Government know, and any Member, such as the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), who intends to support these cuts should know, that this is not a consequence-free decision. Taking away more than £4 billion of life-saving aid guarantees that tens of thousands of the world’s poorest people are going to die. Everyone should also be aware of the consequences of what they are signing up to, because this is not like pulling the plug on the building of a new school. This is not putting off the construction of a new bypass because money is tight. This is not suspending the restoration of the Palace of Westminster because we can no longer justify the cost. This is a decision that will kill people. People are going to die as a direct result of this decision, and there is absolutely no running away from that reality.
This is also the ultimate betrayal of the thousands of people who work in our NGOs and our charity sector—people who strive day in and day out to alleviate suffering and to deliver food and bring comfort to the world’s most marginalised communities. At a time when charities such as the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, Compassion UK, the wonderful Mary’s Meals from my Argyll and Bute constituency, Oxfam, Plan International and so many others are being asked to do so much more with so much less, this is a kick in the teeth that they neither needed nor deserved.
I still find it utterly bewildering that the confirmation of slashing aid for the world’s poorest was in the integrated review of security. The idea that by making the world’s poorest people even poorer we will somehow make ourselves safer is an absolute nonsense. Are this Government really asking us to believe that the best way to make the people of the United Kingdom safer and more secure is to slash vital humanitarian aid, particularly to parts of the world that are already riven by conflict, war and famine, thereby forcing tens of millions of desperate people to uproot themselves and their families and go in search of a better, more secure future? It is a ridiculous notion, and they know that it is a ridiculous notion. But what makes this betrayal of the world’s poorest utterly grotesque is that, having announced that they were taking away billions from those poor communities, the Government announced that they are to spend it on increasing their stockpile of nuclear warheads. We all know that they will always find the cash for their weapons of mass destruction.
Some might not like it, but the country has a fundamental moral obligation to help those in what we now call the developing world, not just because we can afford to help them, which is reason enough in itself, but primarily because this country is in no small way responsible for the situation in which many now find themselves. For more than a century, the United Kingdom grew rich and powerful on the back of the world’s poor. The British empire invaded, conquered, divided and plundered half the world and very often left behind it an impoverished wasteland, so it is about time that this country woke up to the fact that it has a moral responsibility to assist those abandoned to live with the consequences of British imperialism. It should not be running away from that responsibility.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating this debate, and I echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) at the start of the debate that this is not the vote that we were promised on the specific issue of the cuts to 0.7% foreign aid spending. I sincerely hope that the Government do not try to spin that it is, because we know that it is not.
We must have a vote on the cut to the foreign aid budget, because every Member of this House must have the opportunity to register his or her approval, or otherwise, of that decision. Members cannot be allowed to hide behind crocodile tears or meaningless words of regret, and no longer can they hope that, by choosing to stay silent, they will not be asked to come off the fence.
Everyone in this House must have the opportunity to go on the record and say yes or no to cutting the overseas aid budget; to say yes or no to the stark humanitarian costs of the decisions they make. When that vote does come, no one in this House will be able to pretend that they did not know or understand the consequences of their actions.
Finally, this Government love to talk about global Britain and the role that they see for the UK on the world stage. If the UK decides to cut overseas aid, we have to assume that global Britain has, in reality, become drawbridge Britain.
Deforestation in the Amazon
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing the debate and on laying out clearly and convincingly the reality of the situation in Brazil today. Although he painted a bleak and depressing picture, what he said needed saying, and I thank him for saying it.
We all recognise the importance of the rainforest and the disaster that would follow from its destruction, but it seems that, rather than doing everything possible to save it, the Government of Brazil have effectively given a green light to criminal networks to pursue illegal logging, mining and cattle ranching, thereby accelerating the destruction of the forest. It is right that President Bolsonaro is called out, as he has been in this debate, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we are blameless in all this. We are not, because, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) says, on our doorstep—in this city—financial institutions are complicit in the destruction of the rainforest. The Guardian revealed in 2020 that British banks and finance houses had given more than $2 billion to Brazilian beef corporations implicated in deforestation.
Of course, although the implications of the Amazon’s destruction affect the entire planet, they are most keenly felt by the indigenous peoples whose territories are being stolen and destroyed and whose human rights are being routinely violated. The Brazilian Amazon is home to approximately 25 million people, but it is also the poorest region in Brazil, with the worst socioeconomic indicators. Since coming to power, President Bolsonaro has scaled back enforcement of environmental laws, weakened the power of the federal environmental agencies and removed many of the protections and rights of the indigenous people.
As Sônia Guajajara, the leader of the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil, said recently:
“He is committing one crime after another against the peoples of the forest and against the environment.”
She says that he is not only a risk to indigenous peoples but that
“it has turned into a global problem, because what he’s doing here has an impact on the planet”.
As the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said, so fearful are the indigenous people of Bolsonaro and his policies that they have petitioned the International Criminal Court, asking that an investigation be opened into allegations of human rights abuses.
Sadly, across the world, indigenous people are among the most marginalised groups in society. They have historically faced systematic discrimination in everything from healthcare to education and from work to legal rights. They often have little or no political representation. Routinely, their lands have been seized and they have been forced to relocate when others have decided that they have to. All too often, they face persecution and violence and the destruction of their culture, language and traditional way of life. And the people of the Amazon rainforest are no different.
As Myrna Cunningham, a Nicaraguan woman and president of the Centre for Autonomy and Development of Indigenous People, says:
“Indigenous peoples have a different concept of forests. They are not seen as a place where you take out resources to increase your money—they are seen as a space where we live and that is given to us to protect for the next generations.”
Unfortunately, Myrna Cunningham’s concept and vision of what the forest is and how it should be used is not shared by everyone. As we have heard, President Bolsonaro, since coming to power, has actively pursued policies that erode protections for indigenous land and the indigenous people of the forest, and make it easier for non-indigenous Brazilians to carry out economic activity in the Amazon. He has attempted to shift more authority away from agencies whose job it is to protect indigenous rights, and handed it over instead to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, which has a vested interest in expanding development in the rainforest. During Bolsonaro’s first year in power, there was a staggering 135% increase in illegal invasions, illegal logging, land grabbing and other infringements in indigenous areas. According to the Brazilian Government’s own figures, the level of deforestation of indigenous land is now higher than it has been in a decade.
Of course, there is a terrible human cost for those communities seen to be standing in the way of so-called progress, as forest clearings frequently result in violence, forced eviction, harassment, intimidation, death threats, arbitrary arrests of community leaders and even murder. Human Rights Watch reported that illegal deforestation and violence in the Amazon were largely being driven by criminal gangs. Twenty-eight people have been murdered, four have faced murder attempts, and there were more than 40 cases of death threats in 2019 alone.
One indigenous reserve that has suffered more than most is the area of the Yanomami, which in one year saw deforestation soar by almost 1,700%, and where there are no fewer than 536 current requests for mining rights. I will conclude with the words of Davi Kopenawa, a spokesman for the Yanomami people, who said,
“The Whites cannot destroy our house for, if they do, things will not end well for the whole world. We are looking after the forest for everyone, not just for the Yanomami and the isolated peoples. We work with our shamans who understand these things well, who possess wisdom that comes from contact with the land.”
I just wish more shared that wisdom.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
I am going to shave a few seconds off each of the Front Benchers’ speeches to give Mr Shannon a chance, but I ask him to wind up at 3.31.
Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), and indeed all Members who have contributed to this afternoon’s debate. There is no doubt that we are all united in our complete revulsion at, and total condemnation of, this awful practice. Yet, despite being widely acknowledged as one of the most heinous and despicable crimes imaginable, the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war still, to this day, goes largely unreported and generally unpunished.
As we have heard, it is a long and depressing list. From Sinjar to Sri Lanka, Colombia to China, Tigray to Myanmar, Nepal to Nigeria, Bosnia to Libya—the list goes on and on of countries where women and girls are being raped and abused by men carrying guns, who act in the almost certain knowledge that they will never be held to account for their actions.
We have heard from a number of hon. Members that, having initially shown leadership on this issue, the Government have, unfortunately, at best stalled and at worst back-pedalled in recent years. I urge the Minister to recognise that we have a moral responsibility to ensure that those women and girls receive the justice to which they are entitled and that the perpetrators know that they will be tried and punished for their crimes.
Although legal consequences are vital, so too is the responsibility on us all, and all states, to ensure that survivors of sexual violence receive trauma counselling alongside any healthcare they require to assist in their recovery. It is absolutely vital that we all work to end the stigma that survivors of sexual violence experience both in their communities and in wider society. That is particularly relevant to children born of rape. Although a robust legal framework is essential, it is important that a holistic approach is taken towards the healing and recovery of those living with the consequences of these atrocities.
I have spoken a number of times on this issue since 2015, mainly in relation to the Yazidi genocide and the sexual enslavement of Yazidi women by Daesh. I have had the enormous privilege of getting to know very well Nadia Murad, whose story of how she was kidnapped, enslaved and raped shocked the world but shone a light on the vile atrocities perpetrated by Daesh on Yazidi women. Nadia is without doubt one of the bravest and most inspiring people I have ever met. Although I have quoted her in the Chamber before, I make no apology for retelling her story today. Having been taken from her village to Raqqa, Nadia was held, along with other women, in a school. She said:
“There were thousands of families in a building there, including children who were given away as gifts. One of the men came up to me. He wanted to take me…I was absolutely terrified…He was like a monster. I cried out that I was too young…He kicked and beat me…A few days later, this man forced me to get dressed and put on my makeup. Then, on that terrible night, he did it…He humiliated me daily. He forced me to wear clothes that barely covered my body…That night he beat me. He asked me to take my clothes off. He put me in a room with guards, who proceeded to commit their crime until I fainted.”
That is the harrowing reality of sexual violence in conflict. Sadly, in what will be an all too familiar story to women and girls who have been victims of these crimes, no one has been charged or convicted for what has happened.
Despite the well-documented atrocities of Daesh, and its military defeat and the mass arrests that followed, the crime of rape appears to have been completely forgotten, as criminal courts continue to use counter-terrorism legislation to prosecute members of Daesh, with no charges of sexual violence being brought. These Yazidi women deserve justice. The crimes that have been inflicted on them cannot and should not be airbrushed away. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) said, the Government talk a good game, but the reality is that they cannot do that and yet take away funding from the very bodies that can make a difference. That is fundamentally wrong.
The women and girls who have suffered these awful crimes deserve justice, and their perpetrators cannot be allowed to believe that they act with impunity. I urge the Government to work with the United Nations, non-governmental organisations and other international partners to ensure that all countries have legislation that ensures effective prosecution of sexual violence as a stand-alone international crime. Sadly, as we have heard from many Members, wartime rape remains a rule, and accountability the exception.
As the hon. Member for Thurrock said, in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, 50,000 Bosnian women were raped, mainly but not exclusively by Bosnian Serbs and Serbian paramilitary units, who used rape as an instrument of terror and a key tactic in their programme of ethnic cleansing. It is reckoned that for every reported rape, between 15 and 20 went unreported.
The same despicable tactic of ethnic cleansing was used during the Rwandan genocide, with half a million women raped, sexually mutilated or murdered in the course of just 100 days. The aim was to produce more Hutu children and, in other cases, to infect woman with sexually transmitted diseases, thereby destroying their reproductive capabilities. It is an appalling act.
What unites these women of Bosnia and Rwanda, and the Yazidi women, is that despite these atrocities—atrocities that have ruined hundreds of thousands of innocent lives—the number of men charged, prosecuted and convicted of carrying out these rapes is minimal, while survivors of conflict-related sexual violence have struggled to achieve recognition as legitimate victims of war and therefore access to reparations and redress.
In August last year, a UN report concluded that, almost a quarter of a century after the conflict in Bosnia, investigations into sexual violence had been “ineffective and slow” and that
“compensation and support for the victims were inadequate.”
To almost painfully illustrate the point, one Hutu commander, Jean Teganya, who was accused of the rape and murder of Tutsi woman at a local hospital, was convicted—of two counts of immigration fraud and three counts of perjury in the United States. That is appalling. It is simply not good enough. We are all failing these vulnerable women and girls. I repeat the call that I made earlier for the Government to give this issue a much higher priority.
Tragically and appallingly, rape and sexual violence in conflict is endemic—so much so that while it is loudly and rightly condemned, it has almost become an accepted norm. That has to change. We all have a moral responsibility to be part of that change. I am afraid that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) said, right now the UK Government appear to be asleep at the wheel. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) asked, how can the UK Government talk seriously about preventing sexual violence in conflict while at the same time taking away desperately needed funds from those organisations whose job it is to combat and prevent it? I urge the Minister, please, to rethink the cut to overseas aid. It is killing people.
Religious Minorities: Land Rights
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(3 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this afternoon’s debate, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate on land rights for religious minorities, including the Baha’i community in Iran. I thank him for his typically detailed and passionate speech on behalf of yet another voiceless minority group around the world. We have relied so much in this Parliament on his good work.
We heard about the issue of minority communities and the access that they have to their traditional homelands. As he pointed out, it is a real, live and relevant issue, nowhere more so than in the middle east, particularly in Iran and Iraq. I will address the Christian and Yazidi minorities there, too, a little later.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman made specific mention of the Baha’i community in Iran. There is overwhelming evidence that the 350,000-strong Baha’i community, which constitutes the largest non-Muslim community in the country, continues to suffer systematic persecution simply because of their religious beliefs and their decision to exercise their fundamental right to practice their faith.
Like the hon. Gentleman, many of us will have Baha’i communities in our constituencies—I know I do. I have met them many times in Helensburgh. I know the people they are, I can see the good work that they do and I am proud to call them my friends.
For more than 30 years the Iranian authorities have been absolutely determined to marginalise and remove the social and economic rights of the Baha’i community, with instructions from the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council explicitly stating that official dealings with the Baha’i community should be conducted in such a way
“that their progress and development are blocked”.
It is a remarkable and appalling indictment of the Government in Tehran that they behave in such a manner.
As a result, the Baha’i community is regularly demonised in the official state media and by clerics from the pulpits in the mosques. The authorities have actively and officially encouraged blatant discrimination—discrimination that, as we have heard, all too often has led to violence, murder and the confiscation of property and land. Just last year, in a further escalation of the official Iranian repression of the Baha’is, the Government in Tehran officially barred Iranian Baha’i citizens from holding national identity cards. In effect, that stripped them of their basic rights and access to the most fundamental services as citizens of their own country.
There is little argument that Iran’s Baha’i community is among the most persecuted religious minorities in the world. As the 2019 report of the United Nations rapporteur to Iran says, in the eyes of the Iranian Government the Baha’is are considered to be “unprotected infidels”, leaving them very much at the mercy of the state and of the Government. As a result of this state-sanctioned repression, in recent months the Baha’i community experienced a whole new wave of house raids and land confiscation. The hon. Gentleman highlighted that, like so many other regimes, the Iranian Government used covid as a smokescreen to cover their actions. In November last year, without warning the Iranian security forces raided the village of Ivel where the Baha’i community make up about half the population and have been settled for more than 150 years. Among their other crimes, the Iranian security forces unlawfully seized Baha’i property, with hundreds reportedly arrested for resisting house demolitions and land confiscation even though they presented proof that they were the legal owners.
The Baha’i community in Iran is not rich. It is not powerful. The Baha’is do not have deep pockets and they do not have influential friends. The Baha’is are often hard-working, low-income agricultural workers with no other assets or means of earning a living aside from their homes or their farmlands. This means that state-sponsored, court-sanctioned land theft takes away everything they have.
What happened in Ivel was not just the judicially sanctioned confiscation of property and land based solely on the owner’s religious affiliation; it was a flagrant breach of international human rights that also flies in the face of the Iranian constitution. Article 13 of the constitution provides protection of named minorities such as the Zoroastrians and Christian and Jewish communities, but it specifically excludes the Baha’i. Article 19, however, says explicitly that
“regardless of the ethnic group or tribe to which they belong”
everyone in Iran has equal rights. That is reinforced by article 20, which says:
“All citizens of the country, both men and women, equally enjoy the protection of the law and enjoy all human, political, economic, social, and cultural rights”.
Yet we know that the reality is very different. The Baha’i community, despite the protections afforded by the constitution, is afforded absolutely no protection in Iran.
What is happening to the Baha’i community in Iran is deeply concerning, and we in the SNP strongly believe that freedom of religion and belief is a fundamental right that cannot be taken away from an individual by any Government. Iran has to know that the world is watching. While we have known for several years that Iran seems to care very little about its international reputation or how it is perceived globally, that does not mean that we can stop applying pressure where we can and when we can. We will continue to support in any way possible any initiative that will bring pressure to bear on the Iranian Government to cease this awful persecution of a peaceful religious minority. We hope that as well as the Minister highlighting to his Iranian counterpart the things that have been said this afternoon, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, will take the matter directly to the Prime Minister, and seek for urgent diplomatic pressure to be exerted by the UK Government on the Iranian Government to fulfil the human rights obligations that they have signed up to. Perhaps we could ask the Minister to consider following the example of the German federal Government commissioner for global freedom of religion, who has called for Iran to recognise the Baha’i religion under article 13 of the Iranian constitution.
As the hon. Member for Strangford has said, land rights for religious minorities is not solely an issue for the Baha’is or Iran. The atrocities perpetrated by Daesh in Syria and Iraq in the last few years, and the chaos in the aftermath of its military defeat, had a devastating long-term impact on minority religious communities across the region. In Iraq, Christian, Yazidi and even Jewish communities that once flourished alongside their Muslim neighbours are decimated and dispersed—unable or, in many cases unwilling, to return, because of security fears. Persecution and bloody sectarian violence have reduced the number of Christians living in the Nineveh plain and the Erbil region from 1.5 million at the start of this century to a mere fraction of that number today.
The Yazidi community, likewise, have for centuries lived and worked on the land around the Sinjar and, after the most awful genocide at the hands of Daesh, when their people were murdered and forced to flee, their population, which was about 700,000 a decade ago, is less than half that today. Given that the security situation is so fragile and that almost none of the Islamic State perpetrators of that Yazidi genocide have been brought to justice—and still, today, 3,000 Yazidi women and children are missing—how could they, and why would they, go back to their homes? Also, tragically, the Jewish community has of course all but disappeared, having been forced out of Iraq over many years.
On Tuesday night I was privileged to be asked to chair the launch of the Aid to the Church in Need 2021 report on religious freedom in the world. It is an extremely important and detailed piece of work running to several hundred pages, and I commend it to all colleagues with an interest in freedom of religion or belief around the world, and in the basic human right to exercise the freedom to worship and freedom of expression. One of the speakers at Tuesday’s launch was Archbishop Nathanael Semaan who joined us from the diocese of Erbil. He gave a first-hand account of how minority faith groups have been systematically cleared from Iraq in recent years, and made the point that although Daesh may have been beaten militarily, the mentality and mindset that allowed it to flourish in the first place has not gone away. He also pointed to the Iraqi constitution, which despite recognising the right of non-Muslim faith communities to exist, relegates them to the status of second-class citizens, because it gives constitutional recognition to the supremacy of Islam.
The archbishop made the very relevant point that the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all have long and deep roots back to the land that we now know as Iraq. Abraham himself was reportedly born in the town of Ur Kaśdim in the south of the country. As the archbishop said, Iraq has a rich history of religious diversity, and an Iraq without that rich diversity is simply not Iraq. Although he was speaking specifically about Iraq, his words could easily be applied to many other countries in the region and indeed across the world, where many faith groups and communities have lived side by side in mutual respect and tolerance for many years. In too many cases, that is something that has gone completely, and in other areas we can see its final disintegration. It is incumbent on us to speak out, just as it is on Governments to do what they can to defend the human rights of minority communities who face oppression and discrimination for nothing more than holding fast to a faith or belief.
In conclusion, I thank my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford, for securing this debate, for once again shining a light where it needed to be shone, and generally for the tireless work that he does day in, day out on behalf of religious communities around the world as chair of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief. The world is a better place for the work that he does and for having him in it. I am grateful to him.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
From Scotland, we now go to Wales and shadow Minister Wayne David.
Government Support for NGOs and Churches in Developing Nations: Covid-19
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution and for securing the debate, and wish him a very happy birthday. We have known for a long time that the interests of minority religious communities and those seeking to shine a light on human rights abuses around the world have no greater champion in the House than him. He proved that again today, and we thank him for it.
As the hon. Member said in his opening remarks, the covid-19 pandemic is a global economic and health crisis. The virus does not respect international borders, and while one country is at risk all countries are at risk. I add my thanks to all the UK charities, NGOs, faith groups and Churches that have been working on the frontline day in and day out, delivering life-saving care to people living in some of the poorest parts of the world.
The people who have been working throughout the pandemic, supplying aid and assistance to developing countries and countries ravaged by war, or in areas devastated by drought or flood, deserve our most sincere and heartfelt thanks. As so often during the pandemic, it is they who have become the trusted voice in those communities, raising awareness of public health preventative measures, tackling vaccine disinformation and encouraging people to take up the vaccine where it has been available.
As well as being able to deliver effective humanitarian aid and meaningful long-term assistance, they are so often the institutions that people turn to for social and spiritual support. For what they are doing in the most trying and difficult circumstances they deserve our deepest gratitude and support. They do not deserve to have the rug pulled from under them when they are trying to deliver that help to people living in crisis. Sadly, that is exactly what has happened.
In the middle of a global pandemic, at a time when many of the poorest people on the planet are more vulnerable to hunger and disease than ever before, the UK Government—the Government of one of the richest countries in the world—have decided arbitrarily to reduce the help that they give to those poor communities. Not only is the decision to cut foreign aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of GDP a betrayal of those people and of our NGOs and the charity sector, it must also be the final abandonment of what little was left of the UK’s reputation for moral leadership in the world.
What makes that betrayal utterly grotesque is the fact that, having announced that they were taking the money away from those poor communities, the same Government announced that they were preparing to spend billions of pounds to increase their stockpile of nuclear weapons. In my opinion, and that of the Scottish National party and, I believe, of most decent people, to do such a thing is utterly abhorrent and deeply immoral.
Earlier this week, the United Nations published figures showing that around 34 million people are struggling with what it calls “emergency levels” of acute hunger. That means they are just one step away from starvation. At the same time, the UK’s NGOs and charities reported that demands for their services have increased, particularly around healthcare, water and sanitation, food supplies and humanitarian relief. Against that backdrop, whereas every other G7 member responded to the covid pandemic by increasing international aid, the UK alone in that group chose to cut its aid budget for this year.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate and to hearing him explain how the UK thought it appropriate, justifiable or morally acceptable to take money away from starving people and starving children, and from preventing the spread of coronavirus, and instead divert funds into the purchase of even more nuclear weapons. Let us be in no doubt that right now the UK charity sector and our NGOs are in severe financial crisis. Many are at risk of closure because public fundraising has been substantially reduced. The NGO and charity sectors are currently being squeezed from all sides. They are bearing the brunt of Government aid cuts and at the same time having their income from their traditional tried and tested sources of fundraising decimated. High street charity shops, town centre collections and fundraising fetes have all but disappeared because of the pandemic, yet, as the hon. Member for Strangford says, rarely have they been in greater demand.
Bond, the UK network for organisations working in development and humanitarian aid, found that nearly three quarters of the organisations they represent are experiencing financial difficulty. Their income stream has been badly hit, with 81% saying that their public fundraising has been seriously or very seriously affected. The double crisis of a drop in income and a severe cut from Government grant means that these charities face significant challenges in funding their programmes and keeping their organisations afloat. Against that background, the Government cut funding, and almost two thirds of NGOs expect the demand on their services to increase in the next 12 months.
As I have said, this is almost a perfect storm of cuts in aid amid a global pandemic. Those working on the ground are having to do much more, but with much less. I pay tribute, as the hon. Member for Strangford did, to the small church groups and charities that work so hard. He gave a couple of wonderful examples of churches in his constituency that work in Malawi and Swaziland to try to alleviate the worst effects.
My own Argyll and Bute constituency is home to the marvellous and wonderful Mary’s Meals, which uses schools to provide hot meals to 1.5 million of the world’s poorest children every day. It has had to find new ways to feed those children as the pandemic has closed schools and the home has now become the primary place of learning. Thankfully, by working with Governments, community leaders and on-the-ground partners, Mary’s Meals has developed new ways of distribution, and will continue to do so until it is safe, but it is more expensive and more time consuming and will require more money, not less.
Of course, Mary’s Meals is not alone. The financial effect of the pandemic can be felt throughout. In January, I was privileged to join the hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on a virtual tour to see the great work being done by Compassion UK in Togo. Compassion UK is a Christian charity dedicated to empowering every child that it can who has been left vulnerable through poverty. It works in 24 developing countries and is living proof of what can be done with just a little money to give life-changing support to mothers and babies in countries where infant mortality and death from pregnancy complications are, sadly, very high. The pandemic is having a major effect on its work and a significant impact on its clients, who are frightened to go to hospital, are worried about going to anti-natal clinics, and are not attending vaccination appointments for their babies.
Thankfully, Compassion UK has been able to use the years of trust that it has built up in local communities to find networks of support for these mothers and their babies, and provide vital masks and sanitation equipment so that they can protect themselves and their families. I spoke to Compassion UK this morning, and the charity has asked me to extend an invitation to the Minister to join it on a virtual tour to Togo, to see for himself the remarkable, life-changing work that it can do with the tiny amount of UK aid money allocated to it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Strangford will agree that the Minister will be hugely impressed with what he sees, should he choose to accept that invitation.
Mr Efford, those in the sector say that falling income has made it more difficult and more expensive to deliver aid. Yesterday, I spoke to the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, which has been delivering humanitarian aid for decades in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the middle east. They have been assisting the Malawian Government in their national response to the covid pandemic, and are supporting 11,000 slum dwellers and migrants in India with food and sanitation kits.
Every charity has a different story to tell, but they are absolutely united in their unequivocal condemnation of this Government’s decision to reduce overseas aid. They are as one in saying that the Government must keep their commitment to the most marginalised communities and revert to the 0.7% target—a commitment that was made in their election manifesto.
Overseas aid has never been more vital, particularly as the impact of covid is in danger of setting back international development for a decade. I would therefore ask the Minister how the UK Government can cut aid to the most vulnerable people in the world at this time, in a year in which they will chair the G7 and take over the presidency of the COP. How can they claim to be a world leader but, at the time of greatest need, deliberately cut off the supply of aid to the poorest and most vulnerable?
I know that the Minister will say that the UK Government are still one of the biggest contributors to humanitarian aid, and he is right, but that is exactly how it should be. As one of the richest countries in the world—and, let us face it, one that became fabulously wealthy at the expense of countries in Africa, Asia and the middle east, who are now in desperate poverty—we have a moral responsibility to look after those people now, in the moment of their greatest need. The reversal of this 0.7% decision must be the first step in doing that.
This pandemic should have been an opportunity for the UK Government to show genuine leadership. Instead, they have used the pandemic to turn their back on the most vulnerable people in the world. In so doing, not only are this Government reneging on a legally binding spending commitment, but they are also breaking one of their manifesto commitments and their promises. Pulling the rug out from under outstanding NGOs, faith groups and Churches, who battle every day against impossible odds to deliver aid to those who need it most, is unforgivable.
I will finish by reminding the Minister of the words of UN Secretary-General António Guterres, that, when it comes to this pandemic, and the world in which we now live,
“none of us is safe until all of us are safe”.
Press Freedom and Safety of Protesters: India
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair for this afternoon’s debate, Mr Stringer. I am sure that I speak for everyone in thanking the House staff who have worked so hard to get Westminster Hall debates back up and running this afternoon. I thank all colleagues who have contributed to the debate, and I pay tribute to the tens of thousands of people from across the UK who have signed the e-petition, asking that we in this House take the time to consider the plight of Indian farmer protesters and the difficult situation of many journalists currently working in India.
I acknowledge in particular the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), and thank him for the thoughtful way he opened the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. As he said in his opening remarks, the issues are complex. It is important that we reiterate, and make it clear, that in today’s debate in the UK Parliament we have no locus on the merits or otherwise of the agriculture reform Acts passed by the Indian Parliament last year. The future of Indian agriculture is a matter entirely for the people of India and their Government.
Likewise, it is right that the Indian Government appropriately enforce law and order, and should protests cross the line into illegality, it is not our place to say that they cannot police that appropriately. But what is undeniable is that in a democracy the Indian Government have an obligation to uphold and defend the rights and freedoms guaranteed to her citizens by the Indian constitution. That includes the right to protest and the right to a free press: one that is not subject to harassment, intimidation, violence or state censorship. Therefore, while the internal political matter of agricultural reform is not a matter for this House to discuss, I do believe that on matters concerning international human rights, people outside India can, and indeed should, make their voices heard.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk said, since the start of the protests there have been numerous and widespread reports of violence being meted out against protesters by both the police and Government-supporting mobs. We have all read the reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and, indeed, other human rights organisations about the beatings, harassment, intimidation and unjustified detention of farmer protesters that have sadly escalated in recent weeks. Since the tractor rally and the violent clashes on 26 January, protest leaders have claimed that more than 100 people have gone missing as the Indian Government resorted to using laws of sedition to clamp down on protest. That move prompted the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to call on the Government to
“stop threatening, demonising, and arresting peaceful protesters and stop treating them as ‘anti-nationals’ or ‘terrorists”.
Amnesty International called for the
“immediate and unconditional release of activists and others who have been arrested for simply exercising their right to peaceful protest and for the government to stop the harassment and demonisation of protesters.”
In many ways, I am glad that the UK Government have called out the Indian Government. They have made their position clear: they will continue to champion human rights, and they regard the rights to peaceful protest, freedom of speech and a free press to be a vital part of any democracy.
As we heard from so many right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the crackdown against farmer protesters did not happen in isolation. It was coupled to a raft of draconian measures affecting the ability of the press to report freely what was happening. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) was right when he described the clashes on 26 January and how the Indian Government ordered mobile internet service to be suspended in the Delhi area where the farmer protests were ongoing, claiming that it was to maintain public safety. The move was quickly condemned by campaigners and trade unions, who pointed out that under international human rights law, Indian officials should not use broad, indiscriminate shutdowns to curtail the free flow of information or to harm people’s ability to assemble freely or express their political views. A few days after the suspension of those internet services, the Government actually ordered Twitter to suspend the accounts of hundreds of users, claiming that they were inciting violence. A report in The Guardian afterwards said that those accounts belonged to
“news websites, activists and actors”.
As we have heard, at about the same time, eight journalists covering the protests were arrested on what Human Rights Watch has described as utterly baseless criminal charges.
With eight journalists facing criminal charges including sedition, promoting communal disharmony and making statements prejudicial to national integration, it is right that we as an international community speak out in condemnation. As the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) pointed out, the arrest of the journalists came just before other detentions including that of the 22-year-old climate activist Disha Ravi, who was accused by the police of being a key conspirator, a formulator and a disseminator of a protest toolkit for farmers. Indeed, they also claimed that she shared that knowledge with Greta Thunberg.
I was struck when the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) suggested that what was happening was nothing unusual. I beg to differ. These draconian clampdowns on press freedom and individual freedom of expression have not just been condemned by international organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights watch; a whole raft of journalist groups in India have been unequivocal in their condemnation. The National Union of Journalists in India, the Editors Guild of India, the Press Club of India, the Indian Women’s Press Corps, the Kashmiri Journalists Association, the Delhi Union of Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, Reporters Without Boarders and the Indian Journalists Union have all released statements on the crackdown on press freedom and in support of the journalists covering it. As we heard, the International Press Institute has taken up the matter directly with the Prime Minister and has asked him to intervene.
As was said in the opening minutes of this debate, how India wants to organise its agricultural sector is entirely and exclusively a matter for the Indian Government and their people, but human rights abuses and the silencing of the press are a matter for us all. Rajat Khosla, senior director of research, advocacy and policy at Amnesty International, said:
“We have seen an alarming escalation in the Indian authorities’ targeting of anyone who dares to criticise or protest the government’s repressive laws and policies…The crushing of dissent leaves little space for people to peacefully exercise their human rights including the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly in the country.”
There has been an alarming escalation in the Indian authorities’ targeting of anyone who dares to criticise or protest against them. We add our voice to those in the international community and domestic organisations calling for the Indian Government immediately to stop their crackdown on the protesters, the farmers’ leaders and journalists. We want to see the immediate and unconditional release of all those who have been arrested and detained solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. The shutting down of the internet, the censoring of social media and the use of draconian laws against protesters and journalists who have been peacefully voicing opposition to the new laws and questioning the Government’s methods must immediately cease.
Freedom of speech, the right to protest and a free press are the hallmarks of a democratic society. A democracy cannot function if those fundamentals are under attack, suppressed or eroded. Right now, it appears that all is not well in the world’s largest democracy. It is up to the Indian Government to show their own people and the international community that they want to protect that democracy and create a country that works for all its citizens. I urge them to take heed of what has been said here this afternoon, and indeed across the world, look at their own actions and act for the benefit of all their citizens.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend will know that it is a long-standing convention that we do not discuss future proscriptions or sanctions. He makes a broader point about the international standing of Iran. I can only assume that Iran wishes to be brought back into the international fold, but, for that, its behaviour must change.
As I said, we regard the treatment of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other British dual national detainees to be completely unacceptable and we strongly urge the Iranian regime to do the right thing and release all British dual national detainees on humanitarian grounds so that they can return permanently to their families and loved ones.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]
Let me once again put on record the SNP’s unequivocal condemnation of the Iranian Government for the outrageous detention of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I repeat our call for her immediate and unconditional release. Nazanin, her husband Richard and their young daughter have been treated appallingly by the regime in Tehran. If, as the Minister says, this is the Prime Minister’s top priority, I feel she will be let down again, having been let down by him while he was Foreign Secretary.
The UK Government have finally acknowledged that the outstanding debt owed to Iran is a major factor in the ongoing illegal detention of Nazanin. What discussions have been had to explore practical and legal ways to repay the debt? What advice has the Department sought and received on whether that could be done in the form of humanitarian aid supplies?
James Cleverly
As I have said on a number of occasions, the debt, which we recognise, is unrelated. We are seeking ways to resolve this 40-year-old debt, but I am unwilling to go into further details about that as it is an ongoing situation. I would, however, echo the hon. Member’s point that the incarceration of all British dual national detainees in Iran is unacceptable and they should be released.
Integrated Activity Fund: Transparency
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I put on record that I am also all-party parliamentary group on democracy and human rights in the Gulf. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this important debate and thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part for their contributions this afternoon, for the way they have sought to get to the truth of exactly what this fund is and what it is being used for, and for shining a light on places where, frankly, the Government and the recipients of the money would rather a light not be shone.
Although this debate has been a useful exercise, it remains a matter of deep regret that in a democracy there should be such a lack of transparency about how the shadowy Integrated Activity Fund is being used that the only way that we as hon. Members can scrutinise it is to have the occasional debate every couple of years. I fear that, as always happens when the Government are asked about the fund, we are going to be fobbed off with the standard response that the IAF is being used for
“aquaculture, sport and culture, healthcare and institutional capacity building.”
Sadly, that old “Nothing to see here” answer has been the hallmark of the Government’s response ever since the fund was established. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) was absolutely spot on. The Government must think we button up the back if they are asking us to believe that sending money to the cash-rich states in the Gulf is, “to help to develop aquaculture and sporting activities—but don’t ask about it, because it’s a secret.”
We live in hope, however, and the Government should be aware that even the expected non-answers will not deter us from continuing to ask these hugely important questions. The secrecy and lack of transparency that surround this fund make a mockery of the Government’s claim to be pursuing an ethical foreign policy. An ethical foreign policy does not fund states that are complicit in human rights abuses, and then seek to deny elected representatives the right to scrutinise that.
How can it be remotely ethical to give money to regimes that are accused by many highly-respected international human rights organisations of routinely using torture and executing political dissidents? How can it be remotely ethical for a Government to do everything they can to prevent democratic scrutiny and avoid public accountability for what has been done in our name? The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—always a great champion of the rights of people across the world to practise their religion or belief—is correct when he points out that we do not believe that there is freedom of religion and the ability to practise one’s belief in those states, and we should not be funding states that deny that.
I am sure in his response, the Minister will say that the UK Government fully respect human rights and that he will condemn any form of torture and say that they are working to promote best practice among our allies. That is absolutely fine, and no one would disagree that they should be doing that. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said in his opening remarks, the problem is, if they are so confident about their position, why do they run a mile from any form of serious scrutiny?
Due to the Government avoiding scrutiny, it remains unclear where the money goes and what has been done, leading to the inevitable conclusion that they have something to hide and know that, should that truth get out, they would have plenty to answer for that would not be covered under the
“aquaculture, sport and culture, healthcare and institutional capacity building”
defence. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said that the Minister has to accept that hiding from public scrutiny is not a good look and only leads to further suspicion, and that the reason the UK keeps this out of the public eye is because they know that there would be outrage if the UK taxpayer discovered what their hard-earned cash was being spent on. If there is nothing to fear and nothing to hide, why this lack of scrutiny and transparency? Maya Foa, director of Reprieve, said:
“The only way for the British public to be confident their money is not leading to abuses abroad is for the government to publish a full and transparent account of projects we are funding and the human rights assessment for each.”
There is nothing in that that I can see a democratic Government could argue with.
Despite all the evidence of the human rights abuses that this money is going towards, the Government continue to give their unconditional political and economic support to many Gulf states. I think we should be asking more of our allies and friends. Surely we have a moral and ethical obligation to reassess any current aid relationship we have with states that stand accused of human rights violations.
I commend the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for calling out the double standards at play here, considering that we treat other states, quite rightly, as pariah states for how they treat their political dissidents. I fear that the United Kingdom stands accused of turning a blind eye to abuses when it believes it has something to gain.
Given that the opportunity to dig into the workings of the fund are extremely limited, in the time remaining I will ask the Minister a series of questions. He may wish to answer them this afternoon, but I am more than happy to receive a more considered written answer, so long as they do not contain the words
“aquaculture, sport and culture, healthcare and institutional capacity building.”
First, will the Minister accept that criticism of the fund is growing and will not go away? If the UK Government are so confident that the fund only funds lawful, peaceful and legitimate activities, will he explain what they have to fear from an open and independent review of how it is being used? Why, at a time of this supposedly ethical foreign policy, will he not agree to suspend the fund while it undergoes that independent review, in the hope of restoring public confidence? Why do the Government believe that there should be no transparency or independent democratic scrutiny of the activities of those who benefit from these funds? In what way do the Government believe that releasing the information about the activities of those receiving funding would threaten our relations with the GCC states?
The Government have claimed much credit for the human rights oversight bodies now operating in Bahrain, yet numerous human rights organisations have accused them of being complicit in torture and other serious abuses. Will the Government publish their internal evaluations and let Members of this House and the public see how they assess the recipients of IAF money and how they are making progress towards building those effective and accountable institutions? The UN committee against torture and the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy have revealed that those organisations have frequently failed to investigate and have actively shared confidential correspondences with Government bodies. They have been shown to be not only ineffective, but deeply compromised. Does the Minister not agree that those bodies provide the Bahraini Government with a veneer of reform, while achieving very little in the promotion of human rights?
The Government repeatedly claim that they benefit from an ongoing and genuine dialogue. If that is true, why have the Government been unable to come out to condemn the death sentences against torture victims in Bahrain? Why is the receipt of funding from the IAF not contingent on the states seeking it not executing people, including their own dissidents? What is Minister’s explanation for why two states in particular, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, which receive millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, are now executing more people, at a faster rate, than they were before receiving money from the IAF? Will the Government name all the bodies that receive funding, as well as those that deliver the funding? Will the Government provide a breakdown by country or activity? Do the Government believe that there is, currently and in the past, no IAF programme that has failed to comply with the UK’s human rights obligations?
Finally, I once again thank all the Members who have contributed today, and put on record my gratitude to, appreciation of, and respect for those human rights organisations and committed activists who, on behalf of us all, are shining a light where too many people do not want a light to be shone.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Robertson. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for securing the debate today. I am also grateful for the contributions of other hon. Members, and I will attempt to answer as many of the points that have been raised as possible.
The UK continues to look at ways of deepening our already strong and historic relationships with Gulf partners. Our 2015 strategy sought to increase our mutual security, prosperity and regional stability interests. In making that point, I reflect on the comment of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about doing things with a degree of humility, as well as the importance of doing them with a degree of sensitivity. He was right to highlight that. The UK Government seek to work alongside the GCC countries and to support and encourage a positive direction of travel in reforms there. However, being a hectoring bystander is probably not the most effective way to do that.
Brendan O'Hara
On being a hectoring bystander, I take the Minister’s point. We were paying through the nose to be that hectoring bystander. When there is transparency and accountability, that is when it becomes possible to hector, surely.
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and will address some of his points in my speech.
The creation of the Integrated Activity Fund in 2016 was part of the process to support that work to encourage and steer our friends in the GCC. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland highlighted the fact that they are for the most part wealthy countries, and a number of Members have questioned whether there should be any expenditure at all in the region. I remind Members that diplomacy is cost-efficient, but it is not free. If we want to make a positive difference and be a force for good in the world and in the region, we must recognise that it has to be paid for, but it is completely understandable that Members and the British public want the money to be spent ethically and effectively.
James Cleverly
I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I will attempt to address them in my speech.
As I was saying, this co-operation, which is to the benefit of the people of both the Gulf and the UK, is possible only because we are able to build strong and resilient partnerships with countries in the GCC. Of course, building trust has to be balanced with the desire for transparency—a point that various right hon. and hon. Members have made. I take issue with a comment made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who said that the only way to scrutinise the Government’s activity in this area is to have debates. I remind him that that is the way that Governments are meant to be scrutinised; that is how Parliament works. I am here at the Dispatch Box to be part of the scrutiny process of the Government.
Brendan O'Hara
I think the Minister knows the point that I was making: having this debate once every 18 months or every two years is simply not enough, and having written questions fobbed off time and again with almost identical answers is an inefficient and inadequate way to do business.
James Cleverly
I understand. The hon. Gentleman knows that, since becoming the Minister for the region, I am the responding Minister. If he is critical of repetitive answers, it is because the same questions keep being asked, but I will try to address promptly some of the points that were raised, if hon. Members permit.
I am very conscious that, as we have seen today, through written correspondence and more broadly, there has been criticism of the fund, and particularly of our work in Bahrain, but our policy has been to engage with Bahrain and to encourage and support its institutional reform through targeted assistance. For example, the IAF has enabled British expertise to help develop Bahrain’s independent human rights oversight bodies. I know that Members present have been critical, but the creation of those bodies is important, as is their improvement and reform. I know that the ombudsman’s office has, again, been criticised, but it must be recognised that it has investigated more than 5,000 complaints. I invite hon. Members to consider whether those investigations would have happened had we not been involved.