Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(2 days, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady makes a good point. The Government are extremely well joined up on that—I made the point earlier about the DEFRA Minister working closely with the Foreign Office on these matters—so I think she can reassure her constituents that that matter is very much in hand.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The UK played a leading role in securing the passage of Security Council resolutions 2728 and 2720, which set out the urgent demand for expanded humanitarian access.
Stephen Hammond
The way to a sustainable peace, as my right hon. Friend says, is through humanitarian access. Could he please confirm what the UK Government are doing to ensure the full funding of UNRWA again, and what they will do to stop the Hamas terrorist group affecting the supply of aid to Palestinian citizens?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is right about the importance of aid getting in, and UNRWA is a critical organisation in achieving that. He will know that we have had a chance to look at the Colonna report, and I spoke about this matter with the UN Secretary-General yesterday when I was in New York. We are waiting for the report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, which we expect to hear about soon, and we will then reach our conclusions on the best way of getting aid into Gaza. My hon. Friend may rest assured that we are doing everything we can to ensure that aid gets in.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mitchell
We all want to see the focus back on the political solution, which the right hon. Lady ended her comments by extolling. I draw her attention to the telling arguments that have been made—and not just by the Government but by those on her own Front Bench—about why the humanitarian pauses, rather than a ceasefire, are the right approach.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that the House welcomes the extra support that has gone to Gazan civilians, but he will also have noted today that there would be support for further aid to get there quickly. He will know that that aid can only get there, and we can only make sure it gets to the people who need it rather than to Hamas, if those humanitarian pauses are longer than four hours. Can he say what progress is being made? I have listened carefully to what he says, but can he say when he expects success for longer humanitarian pauses?
Mr Mitchell
I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend a timescale of the sort that we would all like to see, but we are aware that to achieve a humanitarian pause is the start of progress, and nothing will deter us from advocating for that on all occasions.
Ahmadi Muslims: Pakistan
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks 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
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The problem with this debate is that it has a sad, grave element of déjà vu. I have brought along my file. Some other Members who were here way back in 2014 will remember that we discussed at that time the UN rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief. I will quickly quote what he said:
“I am very concerned by the recent surge of violent attacks against Ahmadiyya Muslims by militant extremists. Such violence is fuelled by existing blasphemy legislation”.
He urged Pakistan to
guarantee the right to freedom of religion or belief”,
and went on to suggest that it should
“put in place protective measures to ensure…personal security”,
and ensure that those who perpetrate such crimes are brought to justice. That was in the report that we debated almost 10 years ago, in 2014.
Since then, we have had a litany of these debates, year after year. Soon after that report came out, a mosque was torched, and attacks and individual murders took place. That went on year after year, as reported. In 2020, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said, we produced a report, “Suffocation of the Faithful: the Persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan and the Rise of International Extremism”, and at that point we raised the issue of education.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. We must not stop using everything in this House to continue to raise this issue. If we stop doing it and the Pakistan Government will not listen, there is no chance; at least if we continue to raise the issue of persecution, there is a chance that it can be alleviated.
John McDonnell
That is exactly the point that we have made consistently. Every time there is an outrage, bringing it to the Floor of the House is important, because that is noted back in Pakistan. The view now is that the pattern has been consistent, and successive Pakistani Governments have refused to budge.
There has been continuous censorship, a denial of voting rights, the ban on the publication of religious texts and imprisonment for blasphemy—three years just for an Ahmadi calling themself a Muslim. There are also the implications of what is happening in education. Numbers of people are on death row as a result of the laws that have been put in place.
Everything comes back to the pressure we can apply. Over this period, we have consistently made several demands, including that the Pakistan Government prosecute those instigating hate; offer urgent protection to Ahmadi Muslims; investigate the train of unprovoked violence; repeal the blasphemy legislation; and generally uphold rights. We have a specific role as a Government: the UK plays a specific role in relation to Pakistan. We now need to examine all points of pressure that we can exert. I do not want to be here in another 10 years debating the same issues once again.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cleverly
I completely reject the points the right hon. Gentleman has made. I pay tribute to my predecessor, the former Foreign Secretary, for the work that he did pursuing justice for the Dunn family, and I think it is completely inappropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest anything otherwise.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We have summoned senior Iranian diplomats to make clear the UK’s position on the brutality they are meting out on their own people, we have sanctioned judges involved in the secret courts that have imposed the death sentence on Iranian protesters, and we will continue to push the Iranian regime to do better.
Covid-19
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dominic Raab
Of course, we have foreign nationals here who are in very similar positions to the ones that UK nationals themselves are in around the world. We will of course look at those cases as sympathetically and constructively as possible. We know what it is like, from all the cases that we have coming through to the FCO and through to our consular services. I have already raised this issue with the Home Office and the Home Secretary, but we will reaffirm it based on what the hon. Gentleman said today.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary spoke earlier about hundreds of thousands of UK nationals abroad, many of whom are travelling home, which might be taking longer than they expected. Can the Foreign Office be clear about any reciprocal medical arrangements in place in those areas? Many of those cases are UK citizens living in EU states, with which we were formerly partnered. Given that this morning the Chief Medical Officer said that this situation might last for 18 months, will the Foreign Secretary ask former EU partners to consider an elongation of our current reciprocal arrangements?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for the dual way in which he asked an excellent question, and also managed subtly to leverage in the whole question of Brexit phase 2 negotiations. He will know that reciprocal arrangements are in place until the end of the transition period, and any continuation beyond that is for the negotiators to consider. We will always ensure that we provide as much support as possible for UK nationals on the continent, as well as for EU nationals here.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, who will have to wait only a short while to get an answer to that very question.
British Overseas Passport Holders in Hong Kong
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(4 years, 3 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
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the rights of British overseas passport holders in Hong Kong.
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir George. I am motivated to raise this issue because, like many in the House and across the country, I have heard expressions of concern about the situation in Hong Kong and because of what we saw in the protests last year. Like many of my colleagues, I have been contacted by a number of constituents who have views on the subject but also have relatives in Hong Kong. We in this country believe that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental political right, and it should be defended anywhere in the world. It is therefore not surprising that a number of colleagues and I have expressed shock about examples of aggression towards peaceful protesters.
I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary spoke in defence of the right to lawful and peaceful protest in Hong Kong and that that has been raised with both the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments. I am also pleased that the Government are intent on defending the principle of one country, two systems, as set out in the Sino-British declaration. That is a live international treaty, which is binding in international law; it is not a mere historic document, as some have tried to suggest. As a party to that treaty, it is a responsibility for Members of this House and for the Government to speak out when we see it at risk of being eroded. It is not just that treaty that binds the UK to Hong Kong; it is hundreds of years of shared history and ongoing cultural, economic and political links that make us stakeholders in its freedom and prosperity.
There are more than 300,000 full British citizens in Hong Kong. About 120 British companies have their regional headquarters there, and another 200 have regional offices. Hong Kong ranks consistently as one of our top export markets, helped by its ranking as one of the world’s freest economies in the index of economic freedom. Finally, many of our top judges sit or have sat on the Hong Kong court of final appeal, strengthening the rule of law.
It is not, and should not be, just about history. I was fortunate enough to lead a parliamentary visit to Hong Kong some two years ago, where we were all struck by the vibrancy and potential of the economy. In the context of global Britain, it is hugely important to ensure that Hong Kong remains one of the freest economies so we can have ongoing economic and cultural links.
We must speak up in this House when the rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong are under threat. That duty is surely strongest towards the nearly 250,000 people who have British national overseas passports—BNO passports, as they are commonly known—as they chose to continue their links to our country after 1997. The status was created in the run-up to the handover of Hong Kong from British to Chinese rule. Individuals with that nationality are British nationals and Commonwealth citizens, but they are not British citizens, so they do not have the right of abode in the UK or the same rights accorded to UK citizens. They enjoy visa-free travel to the United Kingdom as a visitor, with a maximum of six months’ leave to enter. Should a BNO passport holder wish to live and work in the UK more permanently, they would be subject to the same immigration rules as any normal applicant.
The limited power of the BNO passport, coupled with the recent situation in Hong Kong, has led to vocal calls from some colleagues in the House, and in Hong Kong, for the rights of BNO passport holders to be strengthened and revisited.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. As he may be aware, in the last Parliament I presented a petition signed by several hundred BNO passport holders from Hong Kong calling for a review of their rights under the BNO scheme and for them to be granted consular access to gain the support they need in Hong Kong in the current situation. Does he agree that we should look again at the support we are providing through the consulate to BNO passport holders?
Stephen Hammond
My hon. Friend makes two important points. First, he strengthens the point I was beginning to make: in the last Parliament a number of colleagues raised real concerns about the rights of BNO passport holders and called for those rights to be strengthened. He also talks about consular access, which I intend to raise later in my speech—the Minister will not be surprised about that.
As I was saying, there has been a call for BNO passport holders’ rights to be strengthened. There are two strands to that argument. First, as the Foreign Affairs Committee pointed out in November, there is a fear that BNO passport holders may become more vulnerable to arrest by authorities in the context of the well-documented arrests of pro-democracy demonstrators. Secondly, there are concerns about fairness. While I understand the unique nature of the colonial administration in Hong Kong and the handover to China, comparisons are drawn with the status of citizens of other former colonies. There are also concerns about those who have served in the British Army having no right to retain British citizenship or at least to reside in the United Kingdom.
I recognise, as I do many people who have raised this issue with the Foreign Secretary, the Minister and indeed the Prime Minister, that this is an extremely delicate area where the rights of individuals, historical and cultural links, live protests and ongoing diplomacy must be balanced. Therefore, I wish to air with the Minister some of the concerns raised, which she should be familiar with, and to try to get from her a view on some of those issues and on how the Government see the way forward.
The Foreign Affairs Committee recommended that
“the Government extends the right of abode to Hong Kong residents who are British National (Overseas) passport holders as a means of reassurance that the UK cares about its nationals.”
Of course, that could be achieved through a change to the immigration rules, which could allow for factoring in and adjustment of the financial and work requirements. It could also lay down provisions for family members of primary applicants. If the Foreign Office and the Government believe that full residency rights are not appropriate, perhaps a more flexible means of consideration or category of immigration entry for BNO passport holders could be considered. That could mirror the provisions for EEA nationals or set out shorter residency periods before BNO holders can obtain indefinite leave to remain. I understand that the Government are concerned that that may breach obligations under the joint declaration, but, as the Minister will know, many take a different view, arguing that such amendments do not grant a full right of abode. I would welcome the Minister’s view on that.
Alternatively, the Government could seek a more humanitarian approach—a differing, graduated or nuanced humanitarian approach—to the issue. Professor Guild of Queen Mary University of London suggested that any BNO holders in the UK who might be at risk, be considered at risk or perceive themselves to be at risk on return to the territory could be granted an extension of stay by the Home Office. There is potential for the Home Office to use graduated definitions and criteria of asylum for BNO passport holders should the protests or aggression be seen to recommence.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will provide some clarity about the point raised by my hon. Friend. While BNO passport holders are British nationals and Commonwealth citizens, as they are not British citizens the right of consular access is usually granted only in exceptional circumstances. I—and, I think, many colleagues—would like her view on what the Government’s policy might be on granting consular access to those with BNO passports.
In the aftermath of the immediate situation, some argue that there should be a conversion to full British citizenship. I am not sure that I regard that as a practical solution to the current situation, or in the long term. It would require a lengthy legislative process, raise some consequential questions for people holding British overseas territories citizenship and potentially breach the spirit of the UK’s obligations under the joint declaration. I recognise the problems with that route.
I hope that the Minister will set out her thoughts on the other issues I have raised, in the context of colleagues’ concerns that these are British nationals. While we speak up for the right to protest for anyone around the world, we have a special obligation towards these individuals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George, and I apologise for being 10 seconds late. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) for securing this important debate. I am also grateful for the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). I will try to respond to all the points raised.
Before I address the current situation in Hong Kong, and the implications for those with British national overseas status, it is important to set out the obligations of the UK Government towards Hong Kong citizens with British national overseas status, and where those obligations derive from. BNO status was created in 1985 for people in Hong Kong who would lose their British dependent territory citizenship in 1997, when sovereignty passed from Britain back to China. This status had to be acquired before 30 June 1997, so it is not possible to gain BNO status now. The BNO passport replaced the British dependent territories citizens’ passport. Provisions relating to the creation of BNO status were part of the package of agreements made at the same time as the joint declaration. The status entitled Hong Kong citizens to continue to use passports issued by the UK Government. BNO status does not pass to the holders’ children.
As of October 2019, there were just over 250,000 BNO passport holders, out of an estimated 2.9 million people with BNO status. Individuals with BNO status are entitled to British consular assistance in third countries, but not in Hong Kong, mainland China or Macau. BNO status holders are also entitled to visa-free access to the UK for up to six months as a visitor. However, they do not automatically have a right to remain in the UK beyond that period, and nor do they have access to public funds. Those with BNO status require entry clearance when coming to work, study or live in the UK.
Regarding former members of the Hong Kong armed services who have not received an offer of a British passport, the Government are extremely grateful to those who served in the Hong Kong military service corps. They carried out their duties with the same sense of pride and professionalism as any other British Army regular unit. They are rightly invited to take part in the Cenotaph parade for Remembrance Sunday every year. Under the British nationalities selection scheme, which was introduced in 1990 and ran until 1 July 1997, a limited number of Hong Kong military service core personnel who were settled in Hong Kong could apply to register as British citizens. The Home Office is listening to representations made on behalf of former Hong Kong military service core personnel who were unable to obtain citizenship through the selection scheme.
While BNO status is not contained within the joint declaration itself, it was established as part of the delicate balance in the negotiations that led to the Sino-British joint declaration. Full and continued respect for the provisions in the joint declaration are crucial to the future stability and prosperity of Hong Kong, and to the rights, freedoms and autonomy of its people. It is a legally binding treaty, registered at the UN. It remains in force. As a co-signatory, we have a legal interest in ensuring that China stands by its obligations. The UK Government will continue to monitor its implementation closely.
We want to see the joint declaration upheld in its entirety. We are not therefore seeking to change any one part of the package. We expect China to live up to its obligations under the joint declaration and, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, to its wider international human rights law obligations.
Hon. Members have discussed whether the rights of those with BNO status should be altered following the recent protests in Hong Kong. Our position is clear: we believe that the best outcome for people with BNO status is for them to be able to enjoy the high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms enshrined for Hong Kong in the joint declaration. BNO status was part of the delicate balance and negotiations that were conducted, which were concluded at the time of the joint declaration. The delicate balance reflected in that package needs to be respected. That is why we believe it would not be right to change the legal status of those with BNO status at this time, but they will have our full support in exercising the rights they have as part of their status.
The UK Government continue to take their moral and political obligations towards Hong Kong very seriously. The political situation and protests in Hong Kong are a matter of serious concern to us all. We are absolutely clear that a political solution can only come from within Hong Kong. That requires two urgent steps to be taken: first, a full and credible independent inquiry into the events of the last several months; and secondly, a process of meaningful political dialogue in which all sides engage in good faith.
We have worked intensively over recent months to support a positive resolution to the protests, and to uphold the joint declaration. We continue to engage with the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised these matters directly with the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Carrie Lam, and with the Chinese Foreign Minister and State Councillor, Wang Yi. He also summoned the Chinese ambassador in November.
Senior officials have reiterated our messages during regular engagement with their counterparts in Hong Kong, Beijing and London. Ministers and officials also continue to raise our concerns internationally, including at the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council.
Stephen Hammond
I understood the Minister’s point about the delicate balance and that this is not the time to change any aspect of the joint declaration. However, she said that the UK Government are determined to protect the rights of BNO status holders under the joint declaration. Could she set out now—or she could write to me—how exactly the Government intend to do that in a practical way?
Mrs Wheeler
I will get to the end of my speech and if the answer is not there I will write to my hon. Friend with pleasure.
The Government will continue to listen to the concerns of BNO status holders. It is crucial that their rights and freedoms, as well as those of other Hong Kong residents, are upheld. We remain seriously concerned about the situation in Hong Kong, and we remain committed to seeing the joint declaration upheld. It contains the commitment that Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms must remain unchanged for at least 50 years.
We will continue to work with international partners to ensure that China stands by these obligations. The undertakings made by China to uphold free speech and an independent judiciary are essential to Hong Kong’s prosperity and way of life. They are the best way of guaranteeing Hong Kong’s future success and stability, for all the people of Hong Kong, including BNO status holders, and that is something we all want to see.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman and respect the fact that he has a longstanding interest in this issue. Under the one country, two systems model, and its manifestation through the joint declaration signed by the UK and China, which has treaty status, we gave a range of residents in Hong Kong British national (overseas) status. The importance of that is that we do not want to unpick, at least at this time, one part of the one country, two systems model. If we do that, we risk its not being respected on the Chinese side.
Stephen Hammond
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his position. I was pleased to hear his comments about the UK Government’s steadfast support for the joint declaration and the one country, two systems principle. Will he make sure that we continue to reiterate that very strongly, because that is a mechanism for driving peace in the solution?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right. I raised those issues with the Chinese Foreign Minister, State Councillor Wang Yi, on 31 July. I also spoke to the Hong Kong Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, on 9 August. We support the one country, two systems model. It is important, as reflected in the joint declaration and the treaty-binding obligations that have been made, including to the people of Hong Kong—and including to respect the right of lawful and peaceful protest—that that is adhered to on all sides.
Ahmadiyya Muslim Community
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who is almost an hon. Friend, as we share a border. She referred to the Baitul Futul mosque, which spans our two constituencies. It is where we meet, and as she rightly pointed out, it is the largest mosque in the UK and rumoured to be the second largest in Europe. Like my right hon. Friend and many others in this House, I have been pleased to visit it over many years and to visit the mosque in Putney.
When I was first selected as a candidate, some 18 years ago, the Ahmadiyya community was one of the first to come to see me and to say, “This is what we are doing in the community. How can we work together?” They take part in a number of community events—I wish to stress that at the beginning, before we get on to some of the details. A number of speakers have described this work: the community litter days; and the junior poppy collection day, supporting the people who stood up for freedom in this country and the world when it was required in those dark days some 70 years ago. They recognise the memory of that, and it is symbolic in today’s debate.
The Ahmadiyya community also afforded me the most amusing moment of my first year as a Member of Parliament. Every year, they hold a huge Jalsa Salana for the community all around the world. In those days, it was held in Alton, but it has now moved to a bigger farm in north-west Hampshire. As we drove off, my wife said to me, “You are speaking at this event this afternoon. How many people will be there? Have you prepared something?” I said, “Darling, it is a religious ceremony. If we are lucky, there will be a couple of hundred people there.” Members can imagine my surprise when I stood up to address 30,000 people live and a couple of million more watching on the TV—as they reminded me there. That was a salutary lesson: always try to be prepared before standing up to make a speech, wherever you make it.
Let me get on to the serious points about today. I tried to make an initial serious point about how Ahmadis are integral to my community and to those of so many Members across the House. As we have seen, this community encompass and epitomise their slogan—“Love for all, hatred for none”—and they do so in practical ways. All of us in this House stand up for people’s ability to speak freely and to practise freedom of religion and of political expression. We seek to ensure that people are not allowed to prosecute hate in their speech or actions. In the tour around the world undertaken in the speech of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, she not only rightly concentrated on Pakistan, but rightly pointed out, as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has just done, that we need to look at a number of issues. If we espouse these values in this House, we should espouse them in the actions taken in our country, too.
One or two people have talked about the worrying development of hate preachers coming to the UK and deliberately infusing hate against the Ahmadiyya community in some of the other mosques. I know from local experience that there was a widespread campaign to boycott Ahmadiyya businesses and shops, which was prosecuted by some of these hate preachers. The hon. Lady was right to mention the TV programme on Waltham Forest, and a Radio 4 documentary “Extremism: Hidden in Plain Sight” revealed recently that certain Urdu newspapers in the UK, which are particularly popular among elements of the Pakistani community, were running deliberate hate campaigns against the Ahmadiyya community. So although I understand this is a debate about persecution in the world, the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we hope the Minister will say that he will speak to Home Office colleagues to make sure we are doing all we can to ensure that persecution does not happen in this country. If we do that, when we speak to the outside world, we will be able to do so with the surety that we are acting to drive out that extremism and hate in this country.
It would be unwise of me to do a tour of the world as the hon. Lady did, but I should say that this persecution is widespread. My right hon. Friend the Member for Putney and others have made the point that it is the Pakistan state that puts this persecution into law. Other states, such as Egypt and Kazakhstan, allow persecution, but the Pakistan state, by putting this into law, has made this official persecution. In Pakistan, the Ahmadis are not allowed to call themselves Muslim, they cannot refer to their faith as Islam, they cannot call their place of worship a mosque and they cannot preach or propagate their faith. There is deliberate inequality of opportunity in education and in terms of practising whatever profession they may wish to do.
Although I absolutely respect the Minister’s correct position that much can be achieved in private and with methods that are sometimes not public, I believe that it is occasionally important also to use the megaphone, to use his analogy. He will recognise that this persecution is becoming more widespread and more frequent, and several Members have cited examples, but let me put on the record what Christian Solidarity Worldwide has said in the conclusion of its report on the persecution of the Ahmadiyya community. It said:
“The mood of aggression by certain Islamist groups towards the Ahmadiyya community shows no sign of improvement, even the Pakistani government has lacked the political will to make concession to their community.”
It continued:
“The exclusionary politics…has steadily grown since the creation of Pakistan”
and is playing
“an important role”
in other states in the world.
As the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, this is an increasing problem, not a decreasing one. The Minister for the Middle East has made the point several times at the Dispatch Box about the number of times we are speaking to the Pakistani Government. Given the increasing nature of this problem and how it is now becoming, as others have said, more or less commonplace and accepted practice in certain countries, I hope that the Minister will say something about what influence the Foreign Office can exert, both publicly and privately.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Hammond Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ellwood
I think we should be careful in the language we use. The Iranians, like those in many countries, do not recognise dual nationality, and therefore we have to conduct these matters with diplomacy. Our avenue with the Iranians, which was not there a couple of years ago, is through the Iranian Foreign Ministry and our interlocutors there. We have had communications from our Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, as I said, and now me, with our embassy opening as well.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
The Prime Minister made clear on 17 January the high priority this Government place on their science relationship with Europe. The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), is in regular contact on this issue with his European counterparts, including the European commissioner.
Stephen Hammond
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are no barriers to the UK joining future collaborative ventures, and that the UK intends to pursue those collaborative ventures with high-tech beacons around the world, including Hong Kong and Israel?
Sir Alan Duncan
The Government aim to secure the best possible outcome for UK science and research as we leave the European Union. The EU and the UK have publicly emphasised the importance of continuing to work together to produce high-quality research, so both at home and abroad we will remain at the forefront of science and research.