UK Government Recognition of Somaliland

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

I am not sure whether you are an expert on Somaliland affairs, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this is the opportunity for you to brush up on them. The hon. Lady makes an important point, but there has already been a referendum in Somaliland, and it was absolutely clear about the wishes of the Somaliland people: they want to see recognition, to be independent and to have that independent state. However, if that is a hurdle to establishing international recognition for Somaliland, the Somaliland Government may wish to look at that.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has been extremely fortunate not only in the House allowing him a lot of time to debate this important topic but in the number of hon. Members in their places supporting him and the cause of Somaliland. Wembley has a huge Somaliland community of expatriates who have said to me that, in all likelihood, a new Somaliland would desperately want to join the Commonwealth. Does he agree with them?

[Gavin Williamson]

From my visit to Somaliland and my discussions with so many Somalilanders in the UK, I have a real sense of kinship between Somaliland, Britain and other Commonwealth nations. I think that Somaliland would very much want to join the Commonwealth, and I hope that the Commonwealth would welcome them with open arms.

Human Rights: Kashmir

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

At this critical time in the region, with the US and UK withdrawal from Afghanistan, it is right that people understand the connections between democracy, pluralism and human rights, and the equally strong connections between fundamentalism, terrorism, insurgency and the loss of human rights.

Over the years, Pakistan has harboured Taliban leaders, and the ISI—their security service—has provided other forms of support to them and to other terrorist organisations. As Secretary of State Blinken said in a recent congressional hearing, Pakistan has “harboured” members of the Taliban, including the Haqqanis.

[Mr Mahmood]

Are we talking about the Kashmiri people or about Pakistan? This debate is about the Kashmiri people and the abuse of their human rights.

[Barry Gardiner]

Indeed, it is. I will try to ensure that the connections are apparent.

Of course, it is no coincidence that the last hideout of Osama bin Laden was in Abbottabad, scarcely a mile away from—and, some would say, under the protective shield of—the Pakistan Military Academy in Kakul. Abbottabad is just 20 miles as the crow flies from Muzaffarabad, the capital city of Azad Kashmir. As a constitutional entity—constitutional self-determination has been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne)—the so-called Azad Kashmir, which is better known to the world as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, is not just strange, but unique. It has been given the trappings of a country, with a President, Prime Minister and even a legislative assembly, but it is neither a country with its own sovereignty nor a province with its own clearly-defined devolved authority from the national Government.

Under section 56 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir interim constitution of 1974, the Pakistan Government can dismiss any elected Government in AJK, irrespective of the support they might have in the legislative assembly. Strangely enough for an entity that purports to be a country, the constitution bars anyone from public office and prohibits them from participating in politics unless they publicly support the principle of Kashmir acceding to Pakistan. Imagine that: a country all of whose politicians can be politicians only if they say they do not want to be a country. It will therefore come as no surprise to colleagues when I say that the major civil and police administrators’ positions in AJK are held by Pakistani civil and military officers. It may also come as no surprise to them to find that the putative country has no representation in the Parliament of Pakistan. The territory’s local representatives are excluded not just from the Pakistan Parliament but from even those Pakistani bodies that negotiate intra-provincial resource allocation and federal taxes. So much for “No taxation without representation”.

[Bob Blackman]

Is it not worse than that, because the minority religions are also excluded from that Government?

[Barry Gardiner]

Indeed; I was about to come on to that.

That there is no taxation without representation is not a principle observed in AJK. It is not a country; it is not a province; it is not a state: it is a satrapy. Were I not a British MP conscious of the fact that much of this mess is a legacy of our colonial past in the region, I might almost describe it as a prize of war—but then, of course, that is precisely what Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is. It was gained by the illegal invasion by Pakistan troops in 1947.

Stringent blasphemy laws mean that many religious groups face the death penalty if they are even accused of denigrating the Prophet. Sadly, the infamous case of Asia Bibi is not unique. The rights of women are governed by the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 penal provisions, which prevent women from exercising their marriage choices. The South Asia Terrorism Portal records that of the 42 identified terrorist training camps located in Pakistan, 21 were located in Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Those camps belong to three main terrorist groups: Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and Hizbul Mujahideen. One of the key areas around which the camps are located is Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

According to Human Rights Watch, the Pakistani Government repress democratic freedoms, muzzle the press and practise routine torture within Azad Jammu and Kashmir. According to the world press freedom index prepared by Reporters Without Borders, Pakistan ranks 145th out of the world’s countries, below India. The 2019 Foreign and Commonwealth Office report, “Human Rights and Democracy”, noted that the human rights situation continues to worsen and pointed out that freedom of expression—

Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Joint Committee

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The relatives of my constituents who are trapped in Afghanistan are precisely those people who for the past 20 years have organised their lives around the future that we promised them: a future of a democratic, rights-based Afghanistan where education and equality were to be entrenched. It is for that reason that they became teachers, lawyers, police officers, judges and doctors. They believed that it was possible to build a new Afghanistan where women, religious minorities like the Shi’as, ethnic minorities like Hazaras, and LGBTQ people were all treated with equal dignity. They did not abandon that promise; we did. Now it is my constituents’ relatives who have been left vulnerable to reprisal. They are in hiding. They are being hunted. They are being executed, and women are being captured and given out as a prize of war.

When Kabul fell a month ago, Members of Parliament and their staff worked round the clock to assist British citizens and their Afghan partners and children, and tried to get them safe passage back to the UK, but everything had started too late and the American deadline governed everything. We need to assess the utter failure of intelligence that had insisted that the Afghan Government would hold Kabul for a further three months. We need an inquiry into why, after 20 years of occupation, our military had not prepared a plan B for an emergency evacuation.

My case against the Government today is that, for many weeks, they engaged Members of Parliament on a fool’s errand. They gave us telephone numbers and email addresses where we should send all the details of our constituents’ loved ones. We were asked to point out how they might be particularly vulnerable because of the work they had done or the religion they professed. This, we were told, was necessary so that they could be “prioritised” and provided a “route to safety”. And we did just that. We took the Government at their word and our staff gave their all, day and night and through weekends, to provide just that information. Now we are told that all that documentation of thousands of desperate lives has gone into a black hole.

The Minister responsible for Afghan resettlement, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), wrote to us to say:

“We cannot provide to MPs assessments or updates on those individuals who remain in Afghanistan and whose cases they have raised.”

In what must count as the ministerial understatement of the year, she said:

“We appreciate this is difficult news to deliver to constituents who are desperately worried about family members and friends.”

She concluded:

“With great regret, we will not be able, therefore, to respond to colleagues with specific updates on individuals.”

This is an extraordinary abrogation of responsibility for those to whom our country owed a debt of honour.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting and for giving the hon. Gentleman an extra minute. If he feels so strongly about this, why is the Opposition motion to have an inquiry? Why is the Opposition motion not to ask for more resources to be put forward to help in this situation?

[Barry Gardiner]

I do not think that anybody can be under any illusion about the fact that all of us who have been dealing with this would want more resources put into the situation.

We were engaged with these people for 20 years in a common endeavour—one that we said reflected our values. Well, where is the value of loyalty? Where is the value of commitment and trust? What we have projected to the world is that we do not care about the lives that are left in ruins or the vicious reprisals that will now be taken against our former friends.

One of my constituents has two brothers. They were in hiding, but were found by the Taliban. One of them was taken out and executed on the spot, the other beaten to a pulp and left for dead, but the Government will not be able to respond to me

“with specific updates about his situation”.

The fact is that, despite what the Minister says, the Government are not “prioritising” these people on the at-risk scheme. They cannot give them priority when they do not know where they are, when there is not even an application form that can be filled out to secure them a place on the resettlement scheme, and when they do not tell these people the most vital information: namely, that they have been prioritised.

The Minister’s letter is full of language that is designed to conceal the fact that nothing is being done for these people. All of this is objectionable, but nothing more so than the unspeakable arrogance of the Minister’s request that MPs should cease to present their constituents’ cases to her Department. It is so very far beyond extraordinary that a Minister of the Crown should actually request that MPs do not stand up for their constituents that I feel I must quote the letter:

“Please signpost individuals to gov.uk to check for the latest information...rather than seek to pursue cases on their behalf.”

The Minister should be absolutely certain that I will not obey any such instruction to stop advocating for my constituents. The Government may choose not to respond, but I will continue to do my duty as a constituency MP.

Deforestation in the Amazon

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing this debate, and I note with great pleasure, Mr McCabe, that you are presiding in the Chair.

This debate is timely, with the debate on the Environment Bill continuing today in the Lords. In my speech, I will refer to the vital provisions in that Bill that seek to place due diligence obligations on companies to eliminate illegal deforestation from their supply chains. That is an important start, but we need to go further. First, however, I will focus on the drivers of deforestation.

One key driver is the conversion of forest for ranching to produce beef. It is no wonder that we hear lots of analysis of the importance of transitioning to plant-based diets and the role of consumer choice in mitigating emissions and restoring biodiversity. The number of vegans and vegetarians in the UK has increased by 40%, and it is estimated that by 2025 vegans and vegetarians will form a quarter of our population. That sounds great until one understands that the other key driver of Amazonian deforestation is the demand for soy. The World Wide Fund for Nature reports that the land required to meet the UK’s annual demand for soy between 2016 and 2018 averaged 17,000 sq km, which is an area of land the size of Wales. This situation is all the more alarming when we consider that 27% of soy consumed in the UK was certified as being deforestation-free. If my maths is right, that means that 73% was not. It is no wonder that the Dasgupta review highlighted the fact that our demand for the Earth’s resources is far outstripping the planet’s capacity to supply us. This is what he called the “impact inequality”. We are living as if we have 1.6 planets.

I support the right hon. Gentleman’s push for sustainability labelling on foods to drive better consumer choices. It is clear to me that information, education and choice are essential to bring about change. However, it is also clear that, on their own, they will not be sufficient. We cannot afford to wait and hope that consumers will drive this change. There must be regulation and the legislative framework in place to drive change from the top. In 2020, deforestation in the Amazon increased by 13% in just 12 months and the number of wildfires there hit a 13-year high. It is easy to become complacent when all these figures are brandished about, so to put it simply: if we do not legislate for an end to deforestation in company supply chains, the Amazon—the world’s most vital biodiversity and carbon sink—will reach a tipping point and be gone.

I welcome the proposals in the Environment Bill for a due diligence system for companies to ensure that their supply chains are free from any involvement with illegal deforestation. This follows the recommendation by the Global Resource Initiative, an independent taskforce convened by the UK Government. Yet the GRI also recommended two vital measures that the UK Government have thus far failed to adopt: extending that due diligence to all deforestation, irrespective of legality; and extending it to the finance sector. I will address finance first.

UK financial institutions have provided finance worth £500 million to the three largest beef companies in the world—JBS, Marfrig and Minerva—all of which are linked with illegal deforestation in the Amazon. That is despite earlier commitments from these companies, stretching back to 2008, to end their links with illegal deforestation. UK-based banks and investment firms are providing huge finance for beef companies that are driving deforestation through their supply chains. It is imperative, therefore, that legislation extends to the finance sector. Voluntary commitments have failed. A Global Witness investigation found that these beef-producing companies bought cattle from 379 ranches containing 20,000 football fields-worth of illegal deforestation. That was not the number in the whole of the Amazon; it was the number in one state in the Amazon alone.

That extraordinary depletion of rainforest is being financed by UK financial institutions and investment companies, and despite the evidence, they are failing to act—indeed, they are failing to follow even their own voluntary “zero deforestation” commitments. Mandatory due diligence on financial institutions is vital, because even excellent initiatives, such as the Financial Stability Board’s task force on climate-related financial disclosures, will not pick up emissions from deforestation associated with these institutions’ financing. Mandatory due diligence and a statutory target to reduce our global footprint by 2030 would send the signal to the finance sector of the seriousness of this issue.

We must also address the problem of defining “legality” by producer-country standards. The Government’s own consultation document on due diligence for forest-risk commodities acknowledges that globally only 49% of deforestation is defined as “illegal” under local country laws. When companies in the global north first began to question their supply chains a few years ago, they asked specifically about the legality of the deforested land on which their supply chain products had been grown. The result was that, in order to help Brazilian business meet the demands of its customers, the Government relaxed the rules on legality. They simply changed the law. WWF found that, with Bolsonaro’s weakening of the legislative framework on deforestation, between only 22% and 29% of soy-related deforestation would now come under illegal deforestation regulation. We simply have to go further.

Law enforcement agencies, including the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources—IBAMA—issued in 2019 the lowest number of fines due to deforestation in the past 30 years. Most concerningly, Bolsonaro is taking away the rights of the indigenous communities to block deforestation and mining on their land. That is important because their land protects 34% of carbon stocks in the Amazon.

A Bill introduced in Congress last February would legalise the commercial mining and agricultural expansion on indigenous land without the free, prior and informed consent of those communities. Notwithstanding the devastating environmental impacts of that, it is also a violation of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people, to which Brazil is a signatory.

So, yes, let us label properly, accounting properly for the actual deforestation, but let us also insist on mandatory reporting for companies and, in particular, for those banks and funds that are financing the destruction. As President of COP26, let us ensure that indigenous land rights are a key priority in Glasgow.

ODA Budget

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I do not have at my fingertips the figures for private donations from the United Kingdom, but I think we all know not only that, through the UK Government, we remain one of the most generous ODA-donating countries in the world, but that the British people are incredibly generous. We can all be proud of the way the British people step up whenever there are international challenges. My hon. Friend is completely right that Government ODA spending is incredibly important, but so is the huge amount of money donated by private individuals in the UK.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]]

The Indian community in my constituency is traumatised by the scenes that we are seeing of the covid crisis in India. I welcome the UK’s emergency package of ventilators and oxygen concentrators, but the Minister earlier acknowledged that no country is safe until the virus is under control in every country. Is this therefore not the worst year to cut the aid budget, because by doing so he is endangering lives not only overseas but here in the UK too?

[James Cleverly]

I have already said how proud we all should be of our support to India. This is part of a long-standing bilateral relationship, perhaps one of the strongest in our history. All I can say in response to the hon. Gentleman’s broader question about ODA is that it is driven by circumstances and that we will get back up to the 0.7% as soon as the fiscal situation allows.

Kashmir

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, on this important debate on the political situation in Kashmir. As a constitutional entity, the so-called Azad Jammu and Kashmir, which is better known to the world as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, is not just strange but unique. It has been given the trappings of a country, with a President, Prime Minister and even a legislative assembly, but it is neither a country with its own sovereignty nor a province with its own clearly defined devolved authority from the national Government. Under section 56 of the AJK interim constitution of 1974, the Pakistan Government can dismiss any elected Government in AJK, irrespective of the support it might have in the legislative assembly.

Strangely enough for an entity that purports to be a country, the constitution bars anyone from public office and prohibits them from participating in politics unless they publicly support the principle of Jammu and Kashmir acceding to Pakistan. Imagine that: a country all of whose politicians can be politicians only if they say they do not want to be a country. It will therefore come as little surprise to colleagues when I say that all the major civil and police administrative positions in AJK are held by Pakistani civil and military officers. It may also come as no surprise to them to find that that putative country has no representation in the Parliament of Pakistan. The territory’s local representatives are excluded not just from the Pakistan Parliament but from even those Pakistani bodies that negotiate inter-provincial resource allocation and federal taxes. So much for “No taxation without representation”. It is not a country. It is not a province. It is not a state. It is a satrapy. Were I not a British MP, conscious of the fact that much of this mess is a legacy of our colonial past in the region, I might almost describe it as a prize of war; but then, of course, that is precisely what Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is.

Yesterday in this Chamber we held a debate on religious persecution. Religious minorities in Pakistan have been systematically marginalised. Pakistan, while calling itself an Islamic republic, actually had a secular constitution in 1956. It was only after the ethnic civil war in 1971, which saw the division of the country and the secession of East Pakistan to form Bangladesh, that Pakistan adopted Islam as its state religion under a new and less democratic—and much less secular—constitution. Stringent blasphemy laws mean that many religious groups face the death penalty if they are even accused of denigrating the Prophet, peace be upon him. Sadly, the infamous case of Asia Bibi is not unique, and the rights of women are of course governed by the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 penal provisions, which prevent women from exercising their marriage choices.

The South Asia Terrorism Portal records that, of the 42 identified terrorist training camps located in Pakistan, 21 were located in Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Those camps belong to three main terrorist groups: Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Hizbul Mujahideen. One of the key areas around which the camps are located is Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. According to Human Rights Watch, the Pakistani Government repress democratic freedoms, muzzle the press and practise routine torture within Azad Jammu and Kashmir. According to the world press freedom index, prepared by Reporters Without Borders, Pakistan ranks 142nd out of the world’s countries. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s 2019 “Human Rights and Democracy” report noted that the human rights situation continues to worsen, and pointed out that freedom of expression and intimidation of journalists continue to be a serious problem. The report speaks of widespread intolerance, violence and discrimination, and Pakistan is one of the countries of deterioration, as they are called by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The situation moved on. Despite further conflicts in 1965, the Simla agreement was signed in 1972, when both countries committed to resolving all differences bilaterally and peacefully. That is what they should do, and it is what UK policy is and should be: to let them resolve their differences without political interference from either side.

I deplore the way in which some have always tried to import the conflicts of the subcontinent into our domestic politics. In my borough of Brent, our council leader is a fine and devout Muslim whose family is from Pakistan; our chief whip is a wonderfully authoritative Bangladeshi woman; and our Greater London Authority representative is an enormously respected Hindu.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for securing the debate, and to all hon. Members for their contributions. We have heard some really passionate speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (James Daly), for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), for Keighley (Robbie Moore), and for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), from the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), and from the hon. Members for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), for Bradford West (Naz Shah), and for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

The situation in Kashmir undoubtedly elicits strong feelings and is of great concern to the Government. I assure the hon. Member for Luton North that my colleague, the Minister of State for South Asia and the Commonwealth, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, regularly discusses Kashmir with representatives of the Governments of India and Pakistan. I hope to be able to address many of the issues that have been raised by hon. Members, and leave a bit of time for the hon. Lady to sum up at the end.

Pakistan and India, as we all know, are magnificent countries, as I said in yesterday’s debate. We enjoy incredibly strong and enduring ties with both countries. We have long-standing partnerships with India and Pakistan, based on a wide range of shared interests, including trade, security, development and investment. The Indian and Pakistani diasporas are the largest in the UK, with over 3 million Brits having Indian or Pakistani heritage. These vibrant diaspora communities make a vital contribution to the richness and diversity of British society and the broad and deep relationships between our countries, and those ties enable close co-operation between our Governments. That was evident—as I am fully aware, because it happened within 72 hours of my taking on this role—when we supported the return of thousands of British nationals from India and Pakistan in the wake of the covid-19 outbreak.

Just before turning to the detail of the debate, it is important to highlight the impact that covid-19 has had in Kashmir. According to official figures, there are nearly 3,000 cases of covid-19 in India-administered Kashmir, and 13,000 cases in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. We are in regular contact with both Governments about the situation, and also discussing the economic and health implications of the pandemic in those countries.

Turning to Kashmir, I stress that the Government’s policy remains stable; it is unchanged. We continue to believe that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution to the situation, one that takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people: as the hon. Members for Brent North and for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) mentioned, this was laid out in the 1972 Simla agreement. It is not appropriate for the UK Government to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator in this regard, but it would be wrong to not acknowledge that there are serious human rights concerns in both India-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. This has been confirmed by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in his reports, and has also rightly been raised by the hon. Member for Aberavon.

The situation in India-administered Kashmir has been of particular concern to many here today, including this Government, especially since the revocation of article 370 of the Indian constitution in 2019 and the introduction of a number of restrictions on assembly and communications by the Indian Government, which has been raised by many Members. We understand that some of these restrictions may have been relaxed, with broadband internet partially restored, along with some access to social media. This is welcome news, but more should be done, as the hon. Member for Luton North rightly says. There have been recent elections to the District Development Council in India-administered Kashmir, the first to take place since the revocation of article 370.

However, we are concerned that some restrictions remain in place, including on internet connectivity. This was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, and I thank him for speaking up on behalf of the people of his constituency on the issue of Kashmir. We in the UK Government call for these restrictions to be lifted as soon as possible.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister mentioned the DDC elections. Would he confirm that over 50% of the population freely took part in those elections, and that the largest single party—as opposed to the combined parties—that won in those elections was, in fact, the Bharatiya Janata party?

[Nigel Adams]

I do not have the exact results of the election to hand, but I suspect the hon. Gentleman does, and I am more than happy to go along with him.

Since 2019, we have closely followed reports of detentions in India-administered Kashmir—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North, who again has been a real champion on behalf of his constituents on the issue of Kashmir, raised this. We welcome the release last year of former Chief Ministers Farooq Abdullah, Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti. According to the Indian Government, all individuals who were detained under so-called preventive measures since the constitutional changes have now been released. That is welcome, but of course we will continue to monitor the situation closely.

The hon. Members for Luton North and for Bradford West rightly raised the issue of violence against women and girls and the use of rape as a weapon of war in Kashmir—a point that would also have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who we have heard today is, sadly, self-isolating. He has long been a champion for Kashmir. Affecting one in three worldwide, violence against women and girls is one of the most systematic and widespread human rights violations of our time. Any allegations of human rights violations must be investigated promptly, thoroughly and transparently.

We are aware of the media reports that the hon. Member for Luton North raised that an Indian soldier has been charged with murder, kidnap and criminal conspiracy after the deaths of three Kashmiri men. We welcome assurances from the Indian Government that the army is committed to ethical conduct in its operations and that disciplinary action will be undertaken in accordance with the law where necessary.

We have repeatedly raised our concerns about detentions and restrictions with the Indian Government. The Foreign Secretary has raised Kashmir with his counterparts, including during his visit to New Delhi last month, when he discussed the situation with his counterpart. He has urged, again, India and Pakistan to resolve their differences through dialogue. My noble friend Lord Ahmad is in regular contact with his counterparts, Indian and Pakistani Ministers and senior officials and most recently raised our concerns about the human rights issues with the Indian Foreign Secretary on 3 November. We reinforce these concerns through our high commissioners in New Delhi and Islamabad and here in London.

The hon. Member for Aberavon asked whether I would be trying to facilitate a visit. We are requesting permission for officials from our high commission to visit Kashmir as soon as the situation permits.

It is incumbent on all Governments to ensure that domestic laws are in line with international standards. Any allegations of human rights violations or abuses must be investigated promptly, thoroughly and transparently.

We heard a very moving speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn about her visit to Kashmir. She is an excellent advocate for the region. We call for all restrictions in Kashmir to be lifted as soon as possible.

The hon. Member for Luton North mentioned religious discrimination. We condemn any instances of discrimination, regardless of the country or faith involved. We urge India and Pakistan to exercise restraint across the line of control, to de-escalate tensions and to improve their lines of communication.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough spoke passionately about Kashmir on behalf of his constituents and urged us to raise those issues with the two sides. I can confirm that the Prime Minister has spoken with Prime Minister Modi of India and Prime Minister Khan of Pakistan about the importance of keeping channels of communication open and the importance of managing regional tensions.

The people of Kashmir deserve the opportunity to thrive and succeed, so, more broadly, we welcome the commitment that the Indian Government have made to the economic and social development of India-administered Kashmir. We continue to seek further details of their plans.

Let me end by reassuring hon. Members that the situation in Kashmir remains an important issue for the Government. We continue to talk frankly to the Governments of India and Pakistan about our human rights concerns and to call for all remaining restrictions in India-administered Kashmir to be lifted as soon as possible. We strongly believe that everyone everywhere should enjoy equal rights and protections under the law.

India: Persecution of Minority Groups

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Before I begin, I want to say that I resent having to come here this morning. I also resent the fact that this will be one of the last debates that we are able to have in Westminster Hall. Scrutiny is very important, and the scrutiny we do in this Chamber is important, but we should be able to do it remotely and observe the guidance that the Government have given to others.

Imagine when the Windrush scandal broke in the UK if there had been a debate in the Indian Parliament about the persecution of black people in Britain. Or, in 2011, when the London riots broke out after the police shooting of Mark Duggan, that there had been questions asked in the Indian Parliament about the impartiality of the Metropolitan police, and how it was that they stood by and did not use force to stop the rioters for four days before those riots were brought under control. Imagine that there had been debates in the Indian Parliament all through the troubles in Northern Ireland, accusing the British Government of persecuting the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland.

I say this, not to minimise the subject that hon. Members have brought for debate in this Chamber today—injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere—but to give ourselves a sense of humility and a little perspective about how we might feel, as parliamentarians, if legislators in India were to pronounce on our institutions from afar, putting us under the microscope in the same way that colleagues are doing for their Indian counterparts today.

Add to that the fact that the UK is the former colonial power, whose influence in what is now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh was not entirely beneficent, and certainly not above pitting one religious or ethnic group against the other. In this light, it is not beyond ordinary powers of imagination to conceive that people in India might not regard our intervention as either wholly welcome or appropriate.

Many of my own constituents—British citizens whose families were originally from India—have written to me, outraged by the very fact that we are holding this debate at all. One of my constituents’ letters says:

“It is a very difficult time in the UK due to the severe impact of the coronavirus pandemic. It is surprising to know that elected British Members of Parliament are debating subjects attacking the Government of India, rather than focusing on UK priorities.”

There is of course a debate on covid in the Commons Chamber today, and I do not think that we must confine our debates only to immediate to domestic priorities, so perhaps I should have begun my remarks by declaring my interests. I am a Christian and I therefore have an interest to prevent the persecution of my fellow Christians; but, then, I am also a human being and I have never understood how anyone can feel themselves honoured by the humiliation, let alone the persecution, of a fellow being. I am also the founding chair of Labour Friends of India, and as one of India’s longest-standing friends in the UK Parliament, I am keen to see that the true nature of Indian democracy is properly represented and not distorted.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I shall refer to the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks later, but at this point I will continue to make some progress. I represent the constituency of Brent North, which only Newham, which includes the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), might be able to rival for diversity of ethnicity and religious faith. Perhaps 40% of the families in my constituency are originally from the Indian subcontinent. Many are Hindu and many are Muslim and I am equally at home visiting the mosque or the mandir.

As a Christian, I remember the appalling murder of the Christian missionary Graham Staines in Odisha. He was burned to death with his two little boys, aged 10 and six, when Dara Singh led a group of Hindu militants who set light to the van that they were sleeping in. I think I was the first person in this Parliament to raise the matter with the then high commissioner, my good friend Lalit Mansingh. As a human being, I also remember that Dara Singh murdered the Muslim trader Sheikh Rehman, chopping off his hands before setting him alight too. Psychopaths and murderers exist in all countries, but when talking of persecution it is important to examine how the authorities in those countries respond to such atrocities. The Indian constitution is, importantly, a secular constitution and it provides for protections of minority communities including Sikhs, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists and Christians. Though different political parties have formed the Government since its independence, all have respected the constitution and worked within its boundaries, so it is important to say that 21 years later, Dara Singh is still serving a life sentence for his crimes. It is also important that he was convicted in the year 2000 when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the Prime Minister, at the head of a Hindu nationalist BJP Government.

In June 2017, in response to the growing violence of Hindu mobs known as cow vigilantes, it was the current Hindu nationalist Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, who spoke out against that violence and proclaimed that killing people in the name of protecting cows was criminal, illogical and unacceptable. When the Muslim trader Alimuddin Ansari was later lynched by a Hindu mob for allegedly transporting beef, 11 people were sentenced to life imprisonment, including one local BJP worker. That justice was meted out by a fast-track court and was the first case ever successfully prosecuted against such religious extremists in India. The state acted. It did not sanction the atrocities. Are there atrocities in India? Yes, there are. Are they often perpetrated against religious minorities? Yes, they are. Do they represent persecution by the state? No, they do not. Islam is the second largest religion in India. There are 40 million Muslims in Uttar Pradesh alone. As the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, there are 1.4 billion people in India and the second largest population is Muslim. He spoke of 1,000 attacks on minorities.

[Jim Shannon]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but what has unfortunately not come across yet—I ask him to reflect on this—is the fact that, in the legal system in India, four more Indian states are to introduce anti-conversion laws. That means that 1.3 billion people will be under specific state law and state changes that disadvantage them, and 1.9 million Rohingyas do not have the right of citizenship. I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I have to say this: we are here to speak on behalf of those who have no voice. We should be their voice in this Chamber.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his points so clearly. Let me try to address them. He spoke of Muslims being stripped of their citizenship rights—no. Actually, they are not stripped of rights that they ever had. They were not citizens; they were classed as illegal migrants into the country.

It is very important when talking about India and religious persecution to consider the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019. India is one of the world’s top destinations for illegal migrants. Most are Muslims who come from the neighbouring countries of Bangladesh and Pakistan. The Pew Research Center estimates that they number 3.2 million and 1.1 million from Bangladesh and Pakistan respectively. The Act provided a pathway for illegal migrants to become citizens of India where they had been victims of religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan. It established the important legal principle of non-refoulement by offering shelter to refugees who fled those countries due to discrimination based on religion. It gave that right to Christians, Parsis, Jains and Buddhists.

The Act was passed in both the Lok Sabha, where the BJP Government hold a majority, and the upper Rajya Sabha, where they do not. It sparked riots and outrage because the pathway was not open to Muslims. The argument applied by the Indian Government is that those are Muslim countries, and therefore Muslims coming to India as migrants could not be persecuted religious minorities.

The right hon. Member for Gainsborough spoke about Ahmadiyya Muslims, and I entirely agree with him. The Indian Government say that the legislation discriminates not against Muslims per se, but only against illegal immigrants who do not have a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin. There is a basic logic to that argument, and I disagree with it. It is clear to me that if someone is an Ahmadiyya Muslim or a gay Muslim, it is perfectly possible—indeed, highly probable—that they have suffered religious persecution in one of those countries. It is also possible that Christians or Parsis have come without actually having a well-founded fear of being persecuted. They may simply be an illegal migrant, rather than a genuine refugee. Better, in my view, that the law should seek not to treat illegal immigrants on the basis of broad religious categories at all, but to consider each individual case on its merit. However, India is a sovereign country with an established democracy, and I respect its right to enact legislation whether or not I think it clumsy or ill-framed.

As people criticise India for legislation that is giving citizenship to tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, perhaps we should recall that just in December, a British Home Office Minister complained to the Home Affairs Committee that we had been unable to get the French to agree to a policy of turning back migrant boats in the channel. As India enacts the principle of non-refoulement, we are busy trying to do the opposite. Sometimes, as a Christian, I think we would do better to cast out the beam from our own eye, and then we might see clearly to case out the mote from our neighbour’s.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for leading today’s debate on behalf of the APPG for freedom of religion or belief. In paying tribute to fellow APPG members, I also congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on her appointment as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I know that she has a personal passion for this subject, and I do not doubt at all that she will be an outstanding envoy for the Government, so I wish her well on behalf of my party.

In the run-up to this morning’s debate, I have to say that I have been fascinated—indeed, quite perplexed—by the knee-jerk reaction to the debate. That extends to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner): if I followed the logic of his remarks that we should not be interfering in the domestic politics of other countries, particularly countries that the UK once ruled over, surely the same would be true of the United States of America, but I recall that fairly recently he had lots to say about George Floyd. The reality is that foreign affairs is a reserved matter for this Parliament, and it is entirely right for Members of this House to comment on it.

[Barry Gardiner]

I do not doubt for a moment that we should be engaged in foreign affairs, and we have the right to debate what we wish in this House. I did not suggest otherwise; what I did say was that we should always do so with a sense of humility and appropriateness, and in this particular case, remembering that we were a colonial power that was engaged in pitting one section of the community against the other for over 200 years.

[David Linden]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is a point that I will echo later in my speech. However, several hon. Members in Westminster Hall today have been recipients of emails from members of the Indian diaspora, the High Commission of India, and even a Member of the House of Lords, all getting their excuses in early and suggesting that the issues raised in today’s debate are overblown or misplaced. Only this morning, a number of us received an email with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards copied in, complaining that by taking part in this debate we were in breach of the MPs’ code of conduct—which is frankly nonsense, and I expect the Commissioner will clarify that.

As a Scottish nationalist MP, I understand the optics of India’s former colonial rulers being seen to lecture them on human rights and democracy; that is an irony that will not be lost on many people. However, as I said earlier, foreign affairs is still very much a matter reserved to this Parliament, and it is therefore right that we comment, whether on India or on other parts of the world. I have no problem whatsoever with other Parliaments commenting on our situation as well.

In an email that we received from the noble Lord Ranger, we were reminded—if not rebuked—that India is the largest working democracy globally. I have to say, being reminded by an unelected peer about India being a democracy was certainly a novel experience, but Lord Ranger went on to say that

“a free trade agreement is on the cards in the not too distant future.”

He is right: it is precisely because India is the world’s largest democracy, and a country with which the UK seeks a free trade agreement, that we are having this debate today and bringing into sharp focus violations of FORB and persecution of minority groups.

Religious persecution in India is a topic that I have been following for several years now, but I want to draw the attention of the House to a report from Open Doors UK, entitled “We’re Indians Too”. That report provided a sobering analysis of the escalating human rights violations against religious minority communities in India. Although religion-based violence has existed for years, analysis of instances since 2014 demonstrate that Hindu extremists have created an environment of hate and intolerance towards India’s religious minorities, primarily its Christian and Muslim communities. This in turn has led to an escalation of violence, social ostracism, property destruction, hate speech, disruption of peaceful non-Hindu religious activities, and false accusations of conversion activities. This has all been compounded yet further by the emergence of covid-19. We have heard alarming testimony of Christians from different states walking hundreds of miles to Madhya Pradesh state, being denied rations and informed that they would not have access to assistance. Indeed, the hon. Member for Strangford has said already that Muslims continue to be targeted as a perceived source of coronavirus and in many cases have been denied medical treatment as a result of that rhetoric.

Just as I have paid tribute to the work of Open Doors, I also want to thank Christian Solidarity Worldwide for all of its advocacy in respect of India. With your forbearance, Mr Robertson, I want to single out Joanne Moore who has been instrumental in briefing me on FORB issues over the years, specifically on but not limited to India. Joanne leaves CSW this month and will be enormously missed by all of us in the House who have appreciated her diligence, passion and expertise.

The South Asia state of minorities report of 2020, published just last month, paints a picture of spiting, oppressive and minority politics, the criminalisation of dissent and a deteriorating humanitarian situation within India. Mary Lawlor, UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, wrote, and I quote:

“In India, human rights defenders and religious minorities protesting discriminatory laws and practices have faced restrictions, violence, criminal defamation, detention and harassment.”

She went on to say:

“Other recent legislation limits freedom of opinion and expression, in the guise of preventing disharmony and disaffection.”

The situation is grave, and the UK has a role to play, I would argue. It is imperative that the Prime Minister’s upcoming trip to India in the first half of 2021 is used to send a signal that an enhanced trade partnership between the UK and India will not be signed until real change is realised. The British Government often comment that the UK has very constructive relations with India. It is precisely for that reason, Mr Robertson, that we should be acting as a critical friend when it comes to advocating for minority groups facing persecution. As with any negotiation there are trade-offs, but turning a blind eye to the persecution of religious minorities should not be one of them. It must be the case that that remains a priority for the British Government and this matter should be a red line in any future trade agreement.

Last night the House had an excellent debate on the concept of global Britain. I made it clear then and I do so again today that global Britain is not the SNP’s project. We wish it well, but we do not wish Scotland to be a part of it for obvious reasons. However, an early first test for global Britain is in confronting the increasingly thuggish Modi regime, which has seen the oppression of religious minorities for far, far too long. The Minister knows this particular caucus of MPs well enough to understand that we always put party and constitutional politics aside to advocate for international freedom of religion and belief. In doing so, though, we will hold the Government’s feet to the fire as the Prime Minister departs for India on his trip this year. The success of the trade mission will not just be measured in the size or scope of a free trade agreement. For me, the real measure will be whether or not Members of this House are still raising concerns about religious persecution later in the year, and I very much hope that we will not be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

Sadly, the Iranian authorities have yet to provide any kind of justification for their actions that stand up to scrutiny. Their behaviour is indefensible, and we are confident that our Iranian contacts, including Foreign Minister Zarif, fully understand our concerns and our condemnation of such harassment.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

What proposals the Government have put forward to the UN Security Council on a resolution to the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)]

We remain deeply concerned about the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, and call on all parties to take every measure possible to protect civilians. That is why, on 29 September, the UK called for discussion at the UN Security Council. The day before that, on 28 September, I spoke to both the Azerbaijani and the Armenian Foreign Ministers to urge a return to dialogue under the OSCE Minsk group to ensure a peaceful and sustainable settlement.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister will know that there are more Azeris living in Iran than there are in Azerbaijan—some 50 million of them, who hold great sway and influence. Russia, on the other hand, is firmly committed to supporting Armenia in this conflict, and that could see the Russian and Iranian co-operation in the Syrian war come under severe strain. What concerns does the Minister have about the potential for Iran to become embroiled in the dispute, and what steps is her Department taking to avoid that situation?

[Wendy Morton]

As I clearly indicated, we remain very concerned about this conflict, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it. That is why we are continuing to work to urge both parties back to the table to have dialogue, and to use the Minsk process to further that.

Endangered Species: Developing Countries

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. His campaigning activity, I think, led directly to changes in Government policy. I have not yet been back to Colchester zoo—I think that is our nearest shared zoo, if we go towards my end of the patch—but I look forward to doing so again. They are also an important part of educating our children on the importance of biodiversity. Not all of us can go to Madagascar and see the beauty of that country. In fact, if we all did go it would be somewhat counterproductive in terms of air miles.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I have listened to all the contributions to the debate with great interest. Earlier, the situation in the overseas territories was adverted to. For the UK, 95% of our biodiversity is in the overseas territories, yet 95% of the funding we give for biodiversity goes domestically, within this country. The Foreign Office has always maintained a good relationship with the authorities in the overseas territories, but they have said that although it is their responsibility to act, they do not have the funding. Will the Minister look at that relationship of responsibility and funding? Ultimately, the responsibility under the convention on biological diversity is the UK’s, even though we try to work closely with the governing authorities in the overseas territories.

[James Duddridge]

The two hon. Members make two important interlocking points, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on the absolute importance of the area, and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on our absolute responsibility to assist the overseas territories. Having previously had ministerial responsibility for the overseas territories, I am apprised of that and of the issue of marine diversity in particular, although not exclusively. We have done a lot on that, but I am happy to pass on the hon. Members’ observations to Baroness Sugg, who is examining the relationship with the overseas territories in that regard. We would be open to doing more within our extended family, which is an obvious place to start, rather than in other areas outside that close family.

We have doubled our international climate finance to £11.6 billion over the next five years. We are helping more generally with reform in broader areas such as land use, agriculture and forest governance to help farmers in developing countries, so that they can develop sustainably without damaging the environment. One of the figures I was briefed on, which I had to check several times because it seemed too enormous to be true, is that we lose the equivalent of 30 football pitches of forested area every single minute. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell talked about Berlin and other geographical areas; I am not desperately familiar with the size of Berlin, but I know the size of a football pitch, so that figure really brought home to me the importance of this subject. It is easy to talk about the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Congo basin, but they are a long way away and the DRC is a damn big country, bigger than many of us can conceive, but we can understand the more discrete area of a football field.

We are not just stopping bad things happening, but trying to reverse the changes. We are working to conserve and restore mangrove forests, which my right hon. Friend mentioned. That work, covering 180,000 hectares of biodiverse forest, will improve the livelihoods of 80,000 people in coastal areas and avoid the production of nearly 8 million tonnes of carbon emissions. It is not about merely stopping a trajectory, but about undoing some of the harm.

It is important that we do not operate independently. This is a global issue. We are supporting the global environment facility, which was specifically set up on the eve of the 1992 Rio Earth summit to tackle some of the most pressing problems. We led the last replenishment, contributing £250 million, making us the third largest donor. We should be proud that we do that. We can always do more and we press to do more, but when we do some good, we should celebrate it. Since its inception, the facility has supported the management of over 3,300 protected areas covering 860 million hectares, and in totality the projects have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 27 billion tonnes.[Official Report, 22 July 2020, Vol. 678, c. 14MC]

We are committed to doing even more, investing more of our aid programme in protecting biodiversity and using our own expertise to help in this crucial work. My right hon. Friend rightly presses me on the financial side. We are reviewing the whole Government portfolio in the light of covid and working closely with Her Majesty’s Treasury and other ODA Departments to make sure that all we do is done in a coherent and strategic way. Although I cannot make commitments tonight on the Floor of the House, I can point to the UK’s commitment to double international climate finance to at least £11.6 billion for the period 2021-26. That should reassure him as to our direction of travel.

Mention was made of endangered species and what we are doing to protect them. We are fully committed to the convention on international trade in endangered species and the convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals—the only global convention specialising in the conservation of migratory species, their habitats and their migration routes. We are funding conservation activities in the Kavango–Zambezi transfrontier conservation area in southern Africa, which I know slightly better than the other parts of the world mentioned by my right hon. Friend. That is helping to unlock green corridors and benefiting wildlife and communities, and we will do more.

In the coming months we will use every opportunity to advocate and leverage our impact and influence at a global level on the issue of biodiversity. As co-hosts of COP, we want to amplify the linkages between biodiversity and tackling climate change. We are establishing a joint dialogue between consumers and producer countries, to enable a transition regarding deforestation-free commodity production, driving UK action and green supply chains. We are advocating to secure the protection of our planet’s ocean and land resources by 2030, to help curb climate change, support livelihoods, and safeguard a planet for all. In 2021 we have the convention on biological diversity—COP15—alongside COP26. Having had to delay COP26, in the next 18 months we have an opportunity to deal with some of these issues.

The Ivory Act received Royal Assent in 2018, and there was an appeal to the Court of Appeal which, quite rightly, upheld the Government’s position. There is now a challenge to the Supreme Court—my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes rightly raised that issue, and although we very much want to move ahead, we will be delayed slightly by that challenge. I would be more than happy to discuss the issue with him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We know that the coronavirus is significantly affecting the tourism industry. That point was made by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) as well. The Chancellor has set out unprecedented support for businesses and workers, including those in the tourism sector. That includes business rate support for hospitality and leisure businesses. We have also announced a £1.3 million scheme through VisitEngland to provide support to destination management organisations at risk of closure because of the coronavirus pandemic in order to see them through this difficult time. We are committed to helping the industry to get through this crisis so that we can encourage people to take holidays and revive the tourism sector as we come through the crisis.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]]

The Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies recommended an urgent lockdown to save lives on 26 February, but it took another three and a half weeks to implement it. The Government like to claim that they have been following the scientific advice, but they haven’t, have they?

[Dominic Raab]

We have at every stage, from January, when the original crisis started to break out in China, right the way through to the moment several weeks ago when we announced our social distancing measures, followed meticulously, carefully and assiduously the advice both from the chief scientific adviser and the chief medical officer. As a result of that, and as a result of the measures we have put in place, two things have happened. First of all, we have protected our precious NHS. It has not been overwhelmed in the way some had feared. Also, I pay tribute not just to the key workers we have talked about but to the huge sacrifices made by the great British public. Because of their compliance with the social distancing measures, we are starting to come through this peak. That has happened only because we have taken the right decisions, based on the evidence that we have had, at the right moment in time—and I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that that is exactly what we will continue to do.