Sanctions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are doing all of those things. The sanctions that we currently have in place on Russia are the toughest, in terms of the size of the package, that the UK has put on any country in our entire history. Importantly, however, we are doing more; we are working with our allies to do more every day.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

My constituents cannot understand why we still allow Russian state-owned oil tankers to use UK ports. The Russian state-owned oil tanker NS Century is currently at the Finnart oil terminal on Loch Long, a port adjacent to Coulport, which is a home to the UK’s nuclear arsenal. Why, when we are imposing such harsh economic sanctions on the Kremlin, are we continuing to allow Russian state-owned oil tankers to go freely about their business, particularly so close to this most sensitive military installation?

[Elizabeth Truss]

They will not be going about their business freely for much longer.

Relationship with Russia and China

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing this debate which, although timely, I do not believe is the debate that he or any Member of the House would have hoped to have when he applied for it. I agree with almost everything that has been said this afternoon. I also agree with many of the solutions that have been brought forward, but I cannot help but regret the fact that it took bombs falling on civilians in Ukraine to get us to this position in the first place.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is an act of naked aggression that all right-thinking people must, and do, condemn. But let me be clear: our fight is with Putin and his cronies, with oligarchs who have become billionaires by having plundered Russia’s resources and hidden their obscene wealth in the west, and with those politicians close to the Kremlin who have encouraged and enabled this appalling attack on an independent sovereign state. They are the guilty ones in all of this, not the Russian people. As the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, the Russian people are not our enemy, and I believe we have a duty to ensure that the language we use does not in any way convey that we believe they are. I am sure that they are just as fearful of the consequences of a war in Europe as anyone on the continent is—indeed, given their history, probably more than most.

Of course, there are close ties, friendships and bonds that were forged during the second world war between Scotland—indeed, the whole of the UK—and the then Soviet Union. I am reminded of the actions of the people of Airdrie and Coatbridge who, when Hitler laid siege to Leningrad in 1941, organised relief packages and sent an album, letters of support and cards from churches, factories, co-operative societies and schools. Somehow, that album got through the blockade, and it was greeted enthusiastically by the women of Leningrad. They were so delighted that their allies—people on the other side of the world—had not forgotten about them in their time of greatest need. Despite struggling daily with hunger, disease, death and the consequences of a siege, the people of Leningrad managed to put together their own album containing letters, watercolours and prints and somehow got it back to Scotland, arriving in Airdrie in 1943. That album has been preserved ever since in the care of the Mitchell library in Glasgow. That is an important example of the solidarity and friendship that can and must exist between our peoples.

It is so important that, when we speak today, we do not speak of the Russian people as our enemy; we must make our remarks specific to the leadership in the Kremlin and those who support him. In so doing, and at the same time, we must also point the finger at those much closer to home—those among us who have facilitated the kleptocracy and grown fabulously wealthy by hiding Russian plunder for those people behind a cloak of respectability.

It is clear that the facilitation of what has been called criminal capitalism and the emergence of London as the money laundering capital of the world has infected not just our financial institutions but our politics, too. That can be seen in the oh-so-cosy relationship that has been allowed to flourish between Russian oligarchs and the UK’s governing party. Everyone can see that, for more than a decade, in return for everything from access to Ministers to priority visas, lunch with Ruth Davidson and tennis with the Prime Minister, very wealthy Russians have been throwing money into British politics.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Brendan O'Hara]

Very briefly, because I am on a strict time limit.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The whole point of the debate was to bring the country together to help to support free people who are being oppressed. While the hon. Member mentions all those things, and many of us have condemned several of them, the idea that they are in any way relevant is appalling, particularly when his former party leader—someone with whom he sat on those Benches—is a propagandist for Putin. It is really shameful.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I utterly reject what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If we cannot shine a mirror on ourselves and say where we got this spectacularly and appallingly wrong, we are bound to make those same mistakes again. Let us not gloss over those mistakes. This is not a propaganda exercise. We are complicit—the British political system is complicit—in where we are right now. He spoke on Radio 4 this morning about the weakness of the sanctions regime put together on Monday. He recognises and has gone on record as saying that it was far too little, far too late.

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Brendan O'Hara]

No, I will not give way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. You have had six minutes, Mr O’Hara, so please draw your remarks to a conclusion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Please resume your seat. Mr O’Hara, you are coming towards the end.

[Brendan O'Hara]

That was a nonsense assertion to make, and I utterly reject it.

We must be absolutely clear in what we do and what we say. We must be tough on Russia. There is no room for equivocation at all. It is time for the Government to get tough on those who have laundered Russia’s dirty money here in the United Kingdom. That is why the Scottish National party supports calls for an economic crime Bill to be brought in now, to unify the House. We want to see that registration of overseas interests. We want to see far more robust use of unexplained wealth orders, which have been not used at all, and a blacklisting of all dubious Russian banks. The UK Government must immediately ban Russia from the SWIFT banking system and take proper cognisance of and improve the Scottish limited partnership system before it gets further out of control.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I realise that I am running out of time. There is much more that I would like to say, but I cannot.

Uyghur Tribunal Judgment

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this important debate.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for her outstanding work in keeping the plight of the Uyghur people at the forefront of the minds of people in this House. The way that she laid out her case this afternoon is a reminder that, despite having been targeted and singled out herself by the Chinese Communist party, the Uyghur people have no greater champion in this House than her. I hope that those monitoring this debate will note that threats and intimidation will not stop Members of this House speaking out against and calling out the appalling genocide that is taking place in Xinjiang.

As we heard from every speaker this afternoon, last month the Uyghur Tribunal found beyond any reasonable doubt that the People’s Republic of China is responsible for crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide. Although very welcome, the tribunal’s detailed findings of mass detention, systematic rape, forced re-education, forced labour, mass surveillance, child separation, psychological trauma, forced sterilisation and the destruction of the Uyghurs cultural and religious way of life confirmed what we already knew and have known for quite some time.

The question for us in this House and for the Government in particular must be: for how much longer must we continue to collect more credible evidence of what is happening before we and other democratic nations take a co-ordinated stand against actions of the Chinese Communist party? How do the Government plan to use what means they have to ensure the cessation of that genocide, including ensuring that—as many Members said—we in this country are not inadvertently assisting, aiding or abetting by supporting the Chinese economy? As much as the Government may recoil from the idea, they will have to step up. They will have to show leadership on the issue because, having had the tribunal sit in London, it is inescapable that our responsibility in international law is now clear: when a state learns of a risk of genocide, it is legally obliged to act.

My first question to the Minister therefore is: since the judgment of the tribunal was delivered, what assessment have the Government made of the findings and do they now agree that the Uyghurs are indeed at serious risk of genocide? Since the tribunal’s findings, what discussions have the Government had with international partners, non-governmental organisations, businesses and others to ensure a co-ordinated international response?

On 28 June last year, in response to the public petition, the Government said that they

“will continue to urge the Chinese authorities to change their approach in Xinjiang”.

So I have another question for the Minister: how is that working out?



As the hon. Member for Wealden and others said, the Government’s response should, at the very minimum, be to blacklist UK firms that trade in goods produced using slave labour, and to place a strict import ban on goods that we know originate in Xinjiang camps, or whose raw materials have been grown in those camps. As we have heard, last month, President Biden signed a Bill banning imports from Xinjiang to the United States; it puts the onus on the importer to prove that goods were not made using forced labour. I urge the UK Government to follow President Biden’s lead and explore the possibility of banning the import of cotton products, solar panels and other products that we believe to have been wholly or partly produced in the labour camps of Xinjiang. Also, there must of course be genuinely meaningful Magnitsky sanctions taken against those perpetrating the atrocities, and against those profiting and growing rich by doing business with the perpetrators.

The Uyghur Tribunal had to be independent and unofficial. As its chair, Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, explained, the International Court of Justice could not take this case, because it can look only at cases that have been approved at the Security Council, over which China has a veto. It is highly unlikely that an independent international court will make a genocidal determination any time soon, but I would strongly argue that this does not mean that the tribunal’s judgment carries any less moral authority than it would have done if it had come from an international court. The bottom line is this: whether the tribunal was official or unofficial, now that it has taken place, the UK Government cannot contend that they do not know what is happening in Xinjiang, and they have a moral imperative to act now.

One route to consider was put forward by Sophie Richardson, the China director at Human Rights Watch. She proposed that a United Nations Human Rights Council motion be tabled, asking that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights investigate the atrocities in Xinjiang, even if that has to be done, as another Member said, from outside China. Additionally, we could accept the recommendations of our Foreign Affairs Committee and explore the prospect of a Human Rights Council inquiry on the treatment of this beleaguered minority Muslim community; and of course we should step up sanctions against Communist party officials involved in perpetrating these gross human rights abuses.

The Uyghur people have been subjected to widespread abuse, the scale and ferocity of which is unparalleled in modern times. That is a stain on the world. I hope that the world is waking up to the fact that it can no longer turn a blind eye to this. It can no longer wring its hands and issue hollow words of sympathy when it feels that it has to. In April, the House passed a motion declaring that Uyghur Muslims in China were victims of crimes against humanity and genocide. That view is shared by the Parliaments of Canada, Lithuania and the Netherlands, and the US State Department has also determined that the violations against the Uyghurs constitute genocide. In December, the United States announced a diplomatic boycott of next month’s winter Olympics because of the ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity. Some may dismiss that as a token gesture, but if it leads to a concerted international effort to get China to change its ways, it will be seen as the start of a process, and as having been very worth while.

Finally, everyone who believes in freedom and democracy is indebted to Sir Geoffrey Nice and those involved in the Uyghur Tribunal. As we have said, it may not have had official Government support or backing, or the power to sanction China, but it has laid out clear and unambiguous evidence that a genocide is taking place, and gives democratic Governments and the United Nations the moral authority to hold those responsible to account. Minister, please do not let this House or the Uyghur people down; immediately recognise this genocide for what it is.

Elections Bill

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Miller]

Because it will enable people to be part of the system, to register online and to have confidence in what is going on in our election process.

I want to probe the Minister on the length of election campaigns, which have, I believe—this is to the hon. Gentleman’s point—not served us well in helping to engage people in the election process. Many hon. Members who took part in debates on the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill made the point about the continual lengthening of our election campaigns being not a benign act, but an act that has potential consequences—consequences we are not that aware of. Emerging research suggests that longer election campaigns are potentially disengaging for electors. They mean that the interest of electors wanes over time—perhaps all of us who have knocked on doors have seen that over the last two decades, when election campaigns have increased significantly in length.

Will new schedule 1 and new clause 11, tabled by the Government, provide some sense of opportunity that at least the length of election campaigns will not increase? The former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North, spoke about her understanding of the importance of potentially shortening election campaigns as well. Hon. Members will remember that in law at the moment election campaigns are currently 25 working days, and amendments that I and my hon. Friends tabled the last time these matters were discussed in this place considered shortening campaigns to 25 days.

Will the Minister update the House on the undertaking to consider research into the length of election campaigns, in conjunction with new clause 11 and new schedule 1? That could provide an opportunity for us to understand better how election campaigns affect voter participation, and how the length of campaigns may be shortened in a realistic and sensible way as a result of her new provisions. Will she help the House to understand how she will take that forward to ensure that our democratic process is as strong as it can be? The lack of consideration about the length of campaigns should be something that is of the past, and the issue should be central to the thoughts of the Government in the future.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 1, as well as new clauses 3 to 8, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). I welcome the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) to his place. It is a pleasure to see him.

Before addressing the new clauses, I wish to put on record my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North and the hon. Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who, day after day in Committee, went through the Bill forensically and exposed the fundamental threat to our democracy that is contained in almost every line of it. From restricting the franchise through the introduction of voter ID cards, to giving the Government power to set the strategy and policy of the Electoral Commission, abolishing a progressive, proportional voting system, and constraining how whole sections of civil society are allowed to campaign, this Bill has it all.

This Bill, which—let’s be honest—would not be out of place in the hands of Viktor Orbán or Jair Bolsonaro, should not be seen in isolation and has to be viewed in the wider context, as it includes plans to criminalise peaceful protest and to allow the Home Secretary to strip someone of British citizenship with the stroke of a pen. It places onerous legal constraints on journalists and whistleblowers. Ministers will be allowed to ignore legal rulings made under judicial review and there are plans to abolish the Human Rights Act. It was Peter Geoghegan, writing in openDemocracy just before Christmas, who said:

“This is what democracy dying…looks like. And we need to act now before it’s too late.”

That is why we opposed the Bill on Second Reading, why we sought to amend it radically in Committee, and why, unless Government Members wake up to what they are about to do and fundamentally amend the Bill today, we will oppose it this evening as well.

We in the SNP fully support new clause 1, which would simply bring the age at which people can vote in Westminster elections into line with what already happens in Scotland and in Wales. The SNP has advocated this for a long time—indeed, the legendary Winnie Ewing, when she made her maiden speech from these Benches 55 years ago during a debate on lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, said:

“There are moral and intellectual reasons why it is good sense to make people responsible at the age of 18 if not sooner… I am absolutely on the side of youth.”—[Official Report, 20 November 1967; Vol. 754, c. 980.]

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the future of this country would look entirely different, particularly when it comes to the climate emergency, if we lowered the voting age?

[Brendan O'Hara]

The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point, which I will address specifically as I continue my speech.

What is different now from 1967 is that, with two nations of the United Kingdom already having this provision in place, new clause 1 does not ask the UK Government to take a step into the unknown. We can see how well it is working in Scotland and Wales, where the change has been both seamless and uncontroversial. Any concerns that we might have had about 16 and 17-year-olds not being interested in politics or being unable to understand the issues have been shown to be without any foundation.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I once met Winnie Ewing when I was at school and she came to talk to a politics class I was attending. However, on the new clause, I rise to ask what is the rationale for choosing the age of 16, when people are not considered to be responsible enough to decide whether to buy cigarettes, rather than some other age—say, 15 or 14?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing private rights and public rights. There are public health issues around the consumption of alcohol and the purchase of cigarettes. These are exactly the same debates as we had in 1967, when there were fears about taking a step into the unknown. What is different now, as I said, is that it is not a step into the unknown. It has been proven to work. Why should young people in England and Northern Ireland have different rights from those in Wales and Scotland?

When we had our referendum in 2014, 90% of 16 and 17-year-olds registered to vote and 75% of them turned out to vote on the day. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, studies showed that young people had investigated the issues and had multiple sources of information, and many were far better acquainted with the issues than were their parents or grandparents. To go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), if we look at the age of the people leading the fight against climate change and the demonstrators at COP26, we see that overwhelmingly they were young people making their voices heard above everybody else’s. That tells us all we need to know.

[Cat Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. It was a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee with him. He and his colleague the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) did as much as to scrutinise every line of the Bill as I and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) did.

The hon. Gentleman talks about extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Much of the case made for the Bill has been about making our democracy more secure. One of the ways we can make our democracy more secure is by encouraging more people to participate in it. The more people are voting, the harder it is to swing an election unfairly. That is what we heard in the evidence given to the Bill Committee. Does he agree, therefore, that extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, who will go on to develop a far stronger commitment to voting, will actually strengthen our democracy against foreign interference in British politics?

[Brendan O'Hara]

The hon. Lady is absolutely spot-on. As she says, we heard from many witnesses who said that the wider the franchise and the more the people who vote, the less there can be untoward interference.

Why are the UK Government so opposed to giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote? Unfortunately, the Minister for Levelling Up Communities is no longer in her place. In Committee, I hoped to find out why she thought it was okay for Scotland and Wales, but not for England and Northern Ireland. Her reply to me was:

“There is no need for me to rehash the arguments. I ask him to ask his parliamentary researcher to research Hansard.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 371.]

That was a Minister’s response on this very issue in Committee, and I am sorry she is no longer in her place to correct it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that Conservative Members for Welsh constituencies must be having a similar dilemma. If this is good enough for Scotland and Wales, why is it not good enough for the rest of the United Kingdom?

We want to say to EU nationals and those with the right to remain that, as an integral part of Scotland’s future, they should have a stake in and a responsibility for how we are governed. That is why Scotland has a thriving, healthy, robust democracy. It is telling that, while Scotland and Wales do everything they can to extend this franchise, those on the Government Benches do the exact opposite.

I will turn now to the last of our new clauses, new clause 8. In Committee, Conservative Members regaled us with tales of widespread personation, voter intimidation, postal fraud and the harvesting of votes—indeed, all manner of fraud, theft and deception—yet when they were asked to give the Electoral Commission the power to tackle those abuses and impose a meaningful fine on those found guilty, they refused to do so. Imposing a paltry £20,000 fine has been shown to be no deterrent whatsoever. It is viewed by the worst offenders almost as a cost of doing business. We believe that our proposal for a maximum fine of £500,000 or 5% of an organisation’s or individual’s total spend will give the commission far greater power to act as a genuine deterrent to lawbreakers.

As I said at the beginning, these are incredibly dangerous days for our democracy, and this Elections Bill is just the start of a process that, if passed, will take democracy into a very dark place from which it will be difficult for it to return. This is not happening by accident. The architects of this plan understand exactly where it will lead. Just last month, Elizabeth David-Barrett, the professor of governance and integrity at the University of Sussex, used the phrase “state capture” to describe what is happening. She described state capture as

“a type of systematic corruption where narrow interest groups take control of the institutions and processes that make public policy, buying influence not just to disregard the rules but also to rewrite the rules.”

That is where we are currently. It is extremely dangerous, but it can be successful only if there is a compliant legislature and a widespread public attitude that it could never happen here. But it is happening here, and it is happening here right now.

The parliamentary arithmetic means that only Conservative Members can stop this plan in its tracks, and tonight they have a decision to make. As the soon-to-be ex-Prime Minister heads for the exit door, are they really going to acquiesce meekly and allow his final act to be the fatal undermining of our democracy? Are they really content to have history record them as having been party to one of the biggest betrayals of our democracy, and to have done it at the behest of a man whose days are numbered and who will almost certainly go down in history as the worst and most self-serving Prime Minister this country has ever had? That is complete madness. I ask Conservative Members, please, to think long and hard before backing this dreadful Bill; the Prime Minister is on the way out the door, but they should not let him take their reputations with him as he goes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

I welcome some of what the Government have announced today, particularly the safeguards around postal voting. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who already indicated that the Labour party was in office when voter ID checks were introduced in Northern Ireland, and there we have not seen the impact that the Opposition are suggesting.

I start by opposing new clause 1. For me, the question is about who is actually doing the voting and who is making the decision. I just sat on a private Member’s Bill Committee on increasing the age at which people can get married from 16 to 18 in England. Who is making that decision? The argument was made, and basically accepted by the Opposition, that 16 and 17-year-olds are not making it themselves. That is quite an important point. Also, why are we not talking about 13, 14 or 15-year-olds? I cannot understand why 16 is being particularly aimed for, especially when other things—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members wish to intervene, they can stand up.

We have already made big changes over the past few years to raise thresholds to 18, including for cigarettes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) mentioned, and for active service overseas in the armed forces. I think that with 18 we have hit a new level that we agree on, so I do not understand why we would want to open that up again.

[Brendan O’Hara]

If the 75% of 16 and 17-year-olds who voted in the Scottish independence referendum did not make their own choice, who voted for them? If the research that says that they looked for and discovered the facts and made their own choice is not true, who does the hon. Member think voted for them?

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Member raises a very important point. A far higher proportion voted in that group than in the 18-to-24 age group. I ask again: will he not reflect on who was actually influencing those people voting?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I was asking you.

[Mr Holden]

Wait a second—the hon. Member can intervene again if he wishes. I know that he and the Scottish National party do not want to raise the age of marriage to 18; the Scottish Executive have not made it clear so far, but I think they should. Article 1 in part 1 of the UN convention on the rights of the child says that a child is a child until 18 years of age, so I do not understand why the SNP is still backing child marriage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

There is no doubt that this is a dreadful Bill designed to undermine democracy, but I put on record my thanks to everyone involved in its passage, particularly all those Members who saw the dangers that it poses to our democracy and sought to oppose it every step of the way. I also thank the staff of the Public Bill Office for, again, the remarkable level of professionalism and assistance they provided throughout the passage of the Bill through the House.

The Bill could have not passed without the support and help of the Committee Chairs, so the steady hand and experience of the right hon. Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and for Neath (Christina Rees) were much appreciated. I put on record my personal thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for his advice and support in the last few months and to Mr Josh Simmonds-Upton for all his work in preparing us for Second Reading, Committee and the debates tonight.

To my deep, deep regret, the Bill has passed. The irony that it has passed to the unelected second Chamber to try to salvage an element of democracy should be lost on nobody in this House. What has the United Kingdom become? Hopefully our soon-to-be independent Scottish Parliament will look at the Bill as a perfect example of how not to organise an electoral system.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Bahraini Political Prisoners

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the ongoing detention of Bahraini political prisoners.

First, I put on record my appreciation to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this important debate on the ongoing detention of Bahraini political prisoners. In particular I thank all Members who will contribute this afternoon, given the speed at which today’s debate was arranged. Although arranged in haste, the debate is very timely, coinciding as it does with the 190th day that one of Bahrain’s most prominent political prisoners, Dr Abduljalil al-Singace, has refused food in protest at his treatment in the notorious Jau prison, where he has spent more than a decade for his part in supporting the pro-democracy Arab spring uprising in 2011. Dr al-Singace is one of an estimated 1,400 political prisoners being held in Jau prison, 500 of whom have been sentenced to 20 years or more. I will speak more about Dr al-Singace and other political prisoners later.

Let me declare an interest at the outset: I am the Scottish National party spokesperson on international human rights, as well as being the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on democracy and human rights in the Gulf.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have very close contacts with Bahrain, and it would dispute those figures for the number of people utterly and completely. Bahrain does not have political prisoners; they are all prisoners who are there because they have committed a crime.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I absolutely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s very close connection to Bahrain. Indeed, he has just returned from a trip to Bahrain, as was declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I look forward to his contribution, and he is at liberty to explain to the House exactly why the rest of the world is wrong and there are no political prisoners following the uprising in 2011.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I have listened with interest to the exchange. What has not been explained to me is why, when there is a general release of prisoners, certain categories are never released. That might be a definition of political prisoner.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I think the Father of the House hits the nail squarely on the head, and I look forward to his contribution.

I applied for the debate not just so that Members across the House could mark the events of February 2011, but to ensure that those pro-democracy campaigners who demand freedom and political reform are not forgotten. It is of equal importance that the debate gives us the opportunity to question the Government and ask once again why they continue to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in Bahrain while sending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash to the Gulf state via the highly secretive Gulf strategy fund.

On 14 February 2011, having been inspired by events in Tunisia and Egypt, tens of thousands of Bahraini citizens took to the streets to demand political reform. Rather than engaging with their citizens, the Bahraini Government responded with a brutal crackdown, even going so far as to call in a Saudi-led intervention force from neighbouring states to help crush what had been hitherto an overwhelmingly peaceful uprising. In that crackdown, at least 19 protesters were killed, some tortured to death while in state custody, while thousands more were rounded up and detained by the authorities, with the leaders sentenced to life in jail. By any standard, the response of the state was brutal, uncompromising and wholly disproportionate. More than a decade on, Bahrain had one of the most repressed civil societies in the world, with no political opposition and without a free press. Recently, Reporters Without Borders ranked Bahrain 168th of the 180 countries in the world press freedom index. It was no surprise to find that The Economist placed Bahrain 150th of 167 countries in its 2020 global democracy index.

Despite the brutal repression of the pro-democracy movement and the continued suppression of basic human rights in Bahrain, the UK remains one of its staunchest allies, making a mockery of any claim we may have had to be pursuing an ethical foreign policy, because states that pursue such a policy do not bankroll regimes that stand accused of widespread human rights abuses, including the use of torture and the execution of political dissidents. I suspect that the Minister knows that already. I am afraid that the old excuse of, “We are leading by example”, or, “Things would be so much worse if we weren’t there”, will simply no longer wash, because after a decade of Britain love-bombing Bahrain, there has been no improvement in its behaviour.

I will give the UK Government this, though: they are nothing if not loyal to their friends. Even when they were slashing humanitarian aid to help eradicate hunger and disease in some of the poorest countries on the planet, they actually increased the amount of money they gave to their allies in the Gulf, including Bahrain. A freedom of information request by the Scottish National party revealed that the Gulf strategy fund was increased by 145% last year. That came in the same year that Amnesty International said:

“The Bahraini state has crushed the hopes and expectations raised by the mass protests of 10 years ago, reacting with a brutal crackdown over the subsequent decade that has been facilitated by the shameful silence of Bahrain’s Western allies, especially the UK and the US.”

While the UK sends more and more taxpayers’ cash to Bahrain, the old repression and detention of political prisoners in Bahrain continues. Arguably, the most urgent of these cases is that of Dr al-Singace, the 59-year-old academic and human rights activist who was initially detained in 2010, having returned from speaking at a conference in the House of Lords. He was subsequently released but was re-arrested in 2011, in the aftermath of the popular uprising. Following his detention, Dr al-Singace, a professor of engineering who is disabled and requires either crutches or a wheelchair, was subjected to physical and mental torture, as well as sexual abuse, at the hands of the Bahraini authorities. He was charged with plotting to overthrow the Government and given a life sentence.

The verdict was immediately condemned by human rights activists and non-governmental organisations, with the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists condemning the Bahraini Government for

“a stunning disregard for due process and basic human rights.”

The French NGO Reporters Without Borders declared that his only crime was

“freely expressing opinions contrary to those of the government”.

He has languished in jail for more than a decade, and in July, exactly 190 days ago, he went on hunger strike in protest at the Bahraini authorities’ confiscation of an academic book he had been working on for the past four years of incarceration. In October last year, 46 parliamentarians signed an open letter to the Foreign Secretary asking her to intervene on behalf of Dr al-Singace and his family, but I am sorry to say that nothing has been done and the Government have remained largely silent.

Of course, there are many, many more political prisoners being held in Bahrain’s jails simply for voicing or organising their opposition to the regime. Another case worthy of highlighting is that of 74-year-old Hassan Mushaima, the former leader of Bahrain’s opposition, who is also serving a life sentence, having been jailed in the aftermath of the pro-democracy uprising in 2011. He, too, has been subject to torture and now suffers from medical complications resulting from it. Just before Christmas I met his son Ali, who is working tirelessly to secure his father’s unconditional release. In December, Ali held his own hunger strike outside the Bahraini embassy here in London for 23 days, demanding the release of all political prisoners, including his father.

I know how grateful Ali was for the support shown by Members of this House, particularly those who visited him in the freezing cold days in December. It was meeting Ali on the steps of the Bahraini embassy that was in many ways the catalyst for today’s debate, because I promised him that I would seek to raise his father’s case on the Floor of the House if he agreed to give up his hunger strike before he caused irreparable damage to himself. I am hugely grateful to those who have helped me to keep that promise to Ali and his family, and I wish him well as he recovers from his ordeal.

While I highlight the situation facing Hassan Mushaima and Dr al-Singace, there are others whose predicament is even worse—the prisoners on death row who have exhausted all legal remedies available to them and are now at imminent risk of execution. The executions are only pending ratification by the king, and painful experience tells us that they could be carried out any day without little or no warning given to the families. Of the 26 people awaiting execution in Bahrain, no fewer than 12 have been convicted of political charges. A recent report by the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy and Reprieve found that executions in Bahrain have increased by a factor of 10 since the UK began its financial assistance through the integrated activity fund in 2017.

Just this morning, Human Rights Watch published its annual report. One look at the section on Bahrain shows that things are not getting any better and that the UK’s attempts at gentle persuasion have failed miserably. However, can we expect the Government to change tack? Of course we all understand that much of this is wrapped up in the UK still wanting to appear an important player on the world stage, coupled with a desperate attempt to secure a trade deal with the countries that make up the Gulf Co-operation Council—something, anything, that will offset the damage done to the UK economy by Brexit. But surely we cannot allow a desire for a trade deal to trample over the moral obligation we have to call out human rights abusers, no matter how deep their pockets or how lucrative the terms on offer. If we choose to go down this road of being a champion for democracy and human rights, but only when it does not upset our rich and powerful allies, then in reality we are not champions of human rights at all.

Will the Minister raise directly with the Bahraini authorities the cases of Dr al-Singace and Hassan Mushaima, and the other political prisoners, and demand justice for those jailed for their part in exercising the basic human right of freedom of speech? Will the Government finally abandon their obviously failed policy of trying to love-bomb Bahrain into improving its awful human rights record by putting some real pressure on the regime to change its ways? That could start by suspending the Gulf strategy fund and establishing a public inquiry into whether that fund has supported regimes with poor human rights records.

The UK could stop funding Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior and the ombudsman—bodies that are involved in torture and the whitewashing of abuses against political prisoners. The UK could end all joint training programmes with the Bahraini military until such time as Bahrain allows access to independent human rights monitors, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and UN human rights organisations such as the working group on arbitrary detention. The UK could call for a UN-led commission to investigate torture within Bahrain—one that permits the UN special rapporteur on torture access to its prisons.

In short, there is so much the United Kingdom could do, but is not doing, to call out human rights abuses by its friends. I believe that that refusal to act is doing the United Kingdom enormous reputational damage.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Middle East, North Africa and North America (James Cleverly)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) for securing the debate. It gives me the opportunity to put on record an alternative—and, I suspect, more balanced—viewpoint to the one that he put forward. Nevertheless, the debate gives us all an opportunity to discuss an important issue. I also put on record my gratitude to other Members who have spoken. I will try to address some of their points, but time prevents me from dealing with them all.

As has been said by Members on both sides of the House, the UK and Bahrain are indeed allies and partners. We work closely together on defence, security, trade and regional issues. Our naval support facilities are a symbol of that enduring co-operation and the UK’s commitment to peace, security and stability in the region. The country provided the first permanent UK naval presence east of Suez since 1971, and continues to support our counter-terrorism, counter-piracy and maritime security operations, providing security not just for British trade and British nationals, but for all those who are active in the maritime region around the waters of Bahrain.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute was passionate in his criticism of not just Bahrain, but Her Majesty’s Government. He claimed—Hansard will correct me if I am wrong—that the UK is bankrolling Bahrain. He went on to say that we were trying to get money from Bahrain. It is not credible to hold simultaneously the positions—

[Brendan O’Hara]

At no point did I say that the UK was getting money from Bahrain. The Government are trying to secure a trade deal with Bahrain and that is why they are turning a blind eye to the most flagrant human rights abuses. It is not about getting money from Bahrain, but about turning a blind eye to human rights to secure a trade deal.

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman seems to think that he has clarified his position, but he has made it more chaotic and incoherent. If he does not think that trade deals are about securing an inward flow of money to a country, I dread to think what the trade policy of a separatist Scotland under an SNP Government would look like. However, time is tight and we need to get on. 

I also thought it was quite telling that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) listed and dismissed the oversight bodies—I will come to some of the oversight bodies that the UK has helped to bring into existence later—rather than calling for them to be made more effective. She seemed to want to rip away the organisations that seek, with our support, to improve the legal and criminal justice system in Bahrain, and I think that is perhaps rather telling in respect of her motivations in the debate.

I have genuine respect for my shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), but he accused Her Majesty’s Government of being silent on the issues of concern in Bahrain. He is relatively new in post, so I will forgive him for this, but I suggest that if he thinks we have been silent, that is more of an indication that he has perhaps not been listening. I will highlight where the UK Government have brought these things to international attention.

Defending human rights and promoting democracy around the world is a priority for Her Majesty’s Government. We want to work to support countries such as Bahrain that have demonstrated, and continue to demonstrate, a desire to adopt a more progressive and inclusive domestic set of measures, not just in their attitudes and words, but in their actions.

I have heard from a number of Members that we should disengage from working with Bahrain, including on human rights issues, and I cannot possibly disagree more strongly. They should ask themselves about the options before them: do they want Her Majesty’s Government to drive improvements in countries such as Bahrain or would they prefer Her Majesty’s Government just to stand on the sidelines and shout abuse, as they have done? If it is the former, the question we should ask ourselves is how best we influence change. We are better able to influence change through engagement, dialogue and co-operation. It is patently in the UK’s national interest to help countries such as Bahrain to benefit from our experience and expertise as they move on their journey towards essential reform.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara]

I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the right hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the hon. Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for their contributions.

It is deeply disappointing that in a debate about the detention of Bahraini political prisoners, the Minister did not once in his speech mention the names of Dr al-Singace, Hassan Mushaima or any of the other prisoners who have been mentioned. The message came loud and clear from the Minister that everything the Government have done for the past 10 years may have failed, but it is business as usual because human rights abuses are a price worth paying to secure a trade deal with just about anybody.

As the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate said, this is not a matter of party politics; it is a matter of right and wrong. The Minister and his Government have clearly picked which side they are on. Hon. Friends and Members on both sides of the Chamber will continue to ask the awkward questions, continue to expose the multiple failings of this Government and continue to shine a light where certain people in this House do not want it shone.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the ongoing detention of Bahraini political prisoners.

Freedom of Religion or Belief: 40th Anniversary of UN Declaration

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this hugely important but sadly still all too relevant debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who gave an extremely thoughtful and considered contribution to the debate, as have so many others, and I thank the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for securing it. I thank everyone who has taken part; it is good to see that the subject of freedom of religion or belief has such deep and widespread support across the House. I, too, pay tribute to everyone’s hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for all that he does on the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief.

On this 40 days ago, 25 November 1981, the United Nations made its landmark declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief. As the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) said, article 1 of that declaration states:

“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”

Article 2 confirms:

“No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on the grounds of religion or belief.”

It is thoroughly depressing to think that in the intervening four decades, the world appears to have gone backwards on ensuring freedom of religion or belief across great swathes of the planet. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, all one has to do is look at the Open Doors watch list for 2021 to see that practising one’s Christian faith or expressing a deeply held Christian belief could come at the cost of one’s life.

Of course, religious persecution is not exclusively against Christians—indeed, far from it, and I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) for reminding us that these problems exist very much on our doorstep. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for highlighting the appalling ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, which, as he said, has been described as

“the most egregious violations of human rights in recent memory”.

I also thank him for raising the treatment of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. That should remind us all that people of all faiths and none are facing persecution and that they all deserve equal protection from those who would seek to do them harm for practising their faith or expressing their belief.

Sadly, the evidence in front of our eyes and ears tells us that right now, across the world, there are hundreds of millions of people living in fear of persecution simply because of the convictions they hold or the faith that they profess. We have heard from Members that there is no typical model for how that manifests itself. It can come in the form of direct state suppression—a heavy-handed state crackdown, as we would recognise in China or North Korea. As we have seen in Myanmar, it can come through state-sponsored terrorism.

Persecution can also manifest in the form of discriminatory laws that favour one group ahead of another, as we are currently seeing in India and Pakistan. Of course, persecution can come in the form of organisations such as Daesh, who set out to eradicate the Yazidi people by murdering men and boys and condemning women to a life of sexual slavery—a despicable and heinous tactic that is now being used in Africa by organisations such as Boko Haram and ISWAP. But wherever it comes from and however it manifests itself, we as individuals, as groups and as Governments have to call it out. We have to be seen to be doing everything we possibly can to stop it. It is incumbent on all Governments to take whatever action they can.

It is fitting that we are having this debate on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Yesterday, to mark Red Wednesday, the Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need published a report, “Hear Her Cries: The kidnapping, forced conversion and sexual victimisation of Christian women and girls”. It is a harrowing read, but essential for anyone who wants to understand the day-to-day reality facing too many of our Christian sisters around the world.

“Hear Her Cries” comes in response to the Bishop of Truro’s 2019 independent review, particularly its recommendation 5, which set out the need for further research on how issues of freedom of religion or belief intersect with basic human rights issues such as people trafficking, gender equality, gender-based violence, kidnapping, forced conversion and the forced marriage of young women and girls. On that point, I think that it is appropriate to mention the case of Leah Sharibu, who has been held captive by Boko Haram in Nigeria since February 2018. I urge the Government to do everything they possibly can to help to secure Leah’s release.

One of the main findings in Aid to the Church in Need’s 2021 report on religious freedom in the world is that crimes against women and girls, including abduction and rape, are happening in a growing number of countries. However, we have to accept that even that reported increase is the tip of the iceberg: the abduction, rape, forced conversion and marriage of young, mainly Christian girls remain chronically under-reported, as the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said. That was recognised by the Nigerian Government, who admitted that last year’s officially recorded figure of 210 cases of conflict-related sexual violence did not reflect the reality of the situation on the ground.

Similarly, one report said that 1,000 Christian and Hindu girls were victims of abduction, rape, torture and forced conversion across the whole of Pakistan last year, while another equally important report said that the same figure represented just one province in Pakistan. It really should not come as a great surprise that these awful crimes are chronically under-reported. The United Nations recognises that in Nigeria, as elsewhere in the world, the under-reporting is due to people’s fear of being stigmatised within their community and their fear of bringing shame on themselves or their family.

In 2019, the charity International Alert reported that when many of the thousands of women and girls who escaped from Boko Haram managed to return home, they faced rejection, marginalisation and stigmatisation from their friends, their family and the wider community. In Iraq, Archbishop Semaan of the Syriac Catholic Church recognised the same problem among women and girls from minority faith communities who had been abducted by Daesh, saying that they will not talk about it because they are ashamed. As wrong as that is, it is the sad reality.

Those who do have the courage to speak up are all too often met with indifference or open hostility from the authorities. We have seen too many examples of the judiciary siding with the perpetrator and sometimes sending very young girls back to the home of their abductor and rapist because a court chooses to recognise a false marriage certificate. Even if they escape, report the crime and actually win the court case, those young girls and their families have to live in constant fear of reprisal from the perpetrators and their religious supporters.

That point brings me to the awful case of Maira Shahbaz, a Pakistani girl aged 14 who was kidnapped by a gang of men. She was raped, tortured and forced to marry one of her rapists before falsely claiming to have converted. Maira’s mother went to the police, but when the case came to court, Maira was sent back to the man who had raped her. She escaped and they are now living in hiding, while the men who raped her go door to door hunting for them. They are understandably terrified. She has effectively swapped one form of imprisonment for another. In the foreword to “Hear Her Cries”, Maira asks, on behalf of thousands of girls:

“Who will help us? Who will speak up for us? Who cares about our situation?”

I know that the hon. Member for Congleton and others have lobbied the UK Government, and I hope and pray that the UK Government will be able to step in. They are aware of Maira’s situation because of these interventions. In response to a letter that I wrote in September, the Home Secretary said that her officials were “exploring all possible options”. I should be hugely grateful if, when he replies to the debate, the Minister could update the House on the progress of the application for asylum for Maira and her family.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this debate. Almost exactly a year ago, on 3 November 2020, the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the Government,

“from the Prime Minister down, remain committed to doing everything we can for her.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 185.]

In the intervening 12 months, nothing has changed. Nazanin is no closer to being released, her daughter is no nearer to being reunited with her mother, and her husband, Richard, has been forced into enduring yet another hunger strike to highlight her case. Since her detention in April 2016, five Foreign Secretaries have promised to explore every avenue, leave no stone unturned and work tirelessly to secure her release. However, there has been no progress.

Last year, when the Defence Secretary finally acknowledged that there is a debt and a debt has to be repaid, it suddenly felt like progress; it felt like perhaps there was a breakthrough. The Minister himself admitted that they were exploring ways to repay this debt.

A year ago it felt like negotiations were at a delicate stage, when one misspoken word could set the whole process back. Yet here we are, stuck in the same situation as we were then. The inescapable conclusion must therefore be that this Government are actually not serious about securing the release of Nazanin. They have had so many chances, so many opportunities, and every single one of them has been missed.

I visited Richard twice during his hunger strikes, and on both occasions I was struck by his resolve to not sit meekly back and wait for debates to take their course. The Government are letting the people down; they are letting Nazanin down, and there is a seven-year-old girl stuck in the middle. Minister, it is not good enough. The public are not with you. Richard Ratcliffe is not going to go away, and neither are his supporters in this House.

Ethiopia, Sudan and Tigray: Humanitarian Situation

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a genuine pleasure to see you in the Chair for today’s extremely important and particularly timely debate, Ms Bardell. I also thank the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for securing this debate and for the manner in which he opened the proceedings this afternoon, on the day that the joint report of the United Nations Human Rights Office and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission joint report has been published. And as we have already heard from several Members, the debate falls on the first day of the anniversary of the start of the armed conflict in Tigray.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), this debate also gives us the opportunity to discuss last week’s military coup in Sudan and the consequences it will have not just for the unfortunate Sudanese victims but for the region as a whole, which seems to be descending further into conflict and violence.

As the right hon. Member for Islington North said, the joint report of the UN Human Rights Office and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission was published this morning. It points the finger of blame at all sides, saying unequivocally that all parties to the Tigray conflict have committed violations of international human rights, and of humanitarian and refugee law. Some of these may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. It also says that most violations in the period covered by the report were committed by Ethiopian and Eritrean forces, but recently there have been increased reports of violations by Tigrayan forces as well. No one emerges with clean hands. As always, it is innocent civilians who suffer at such times.

Over the past 12 months, the people of Tigray have had to endure unimaginable horrors as war has raged through their country. Tens of thousands of people have died, millions have been displaced, and reports of crops being destroyed, property looted, massacres and summary executions of civilians are all too common. Almost inevitably, as the hon. Member for Putney said, there have been reports of widespread humanitarian abuses, including the use of rape and sexual violence against women and girls as a weapon of war. In the words of Sir Mark Lowcock, the former UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, it is being used

“as a means to humiliate, terrorize, and traumatize an entire population today and into the next generation.”

Six months ago, the UN reckoned that around 22,500 women would require support as a consequence of conflict-related sexual violence. Therefore, we have to assume that today, sadly, many more Tigrayan women and girls are going to have to seek help. They join that depressingly long list of women and girls from just about every part of the world who have been raped and abused by men carrying guns.

What is worse, those men carrying guns act in the almost certain knowledge that they will never be held to account for their actions. At the very least, the women and girls who have suffered those awful crimes deserve justice and those perpetrators not being allowed to believe that they act with impunity. I urge the Government to work with the UN, the non-governmental organisations and other international partners to ensure that all countries have legislation to ensure effective prosecution of sexual violence as a stand-alone international crime.

Despite the Ethiopian Government’s attempted communications blackout, reports continue to filter through of appalling crimes being perpetrated against the civilian population. We have heard that about all sides—let us be clear that all sides are responsible—but in particular about Ethiopian and Eritrean forces. In May this year, the US-based Catholic News Service ran a piece on the testimony given by an Ethiopian Catholic priest, who said that killings, abduction and rape by Ethiopian soldiers and their Eritrean allies were commonplace. The priest, who for obvious reasons did not want to be identified, accused the Ethiopian troops and their allies of ethnic cleansing:

“They want to annihilate Tigray. By killing the men and boys, they are trying to destroy any future resistance. They want to make sure that nobody can question their actions in future…They are raping and destroying women to ensure that they cannot raise a community in future. They are using rape and food as weapons of war.”

His observations echo those of the Patriarch Mathias, head of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, who accused the Ethiopian army and its allies of the highest form of cruelty and brutality in Tigray.

War and conflict, however, do not exist in a vacuum. As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said, on top of everything else people have suffered, they now face the prospect of famine. Ninety per cent. of the Tigrayan population are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance, including 400,000 people who face famine-like conditions already. Millions are on the brink of hunger, food stocks that ran out at the end of August are not being replaced, fewer than one in 10 of the trucks required to carry food and fuel to the people of Tigray has made it through, and 100,000 children in Tigray are suffering from life-threatening acute severe malnutrition and could die in the next 12 months.

The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) was absolutely right to draw a parallel between what is happening in Tigray and what happened in Rwanda in the ’90s. We cannot allow history to repeat itself. By any measure, this is a deep humanitarian crisis. As the head of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs said in September, it is a “stain on our conscience”.

Similar to the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), I ask the Minister in her response to the debate to tell us what assessment has been made of the impact of the Government’s cut to the overseas aid budget on the situation in Tigray. Also, what initiatives have been taken by her Department to support the United Nations and other agencies to prevent the humanitarian crisis from deepening? What have been the most recent discussions between the FCDO and the Governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea to bring the conflict to an end? What is her Department doing to ensure that those who use or encourage rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war are brought to justice?

At the start, I said that the crisis took a turn for the worse last week when there was a coup in Sudan. The military dissolved the transitional Government and seized control, arresting and imprisoning Government members and putting Prime Minister Hamdok under house arrest, in chilling echoes of the oppressive regime of Omar al-Bashir. It is extremely worrying that members of the former Government have now found themselves in hospital. We have all seen or heard reports of excessive illegal force being used against civilian protestors, with at least three people killed last week. Exact numbers remain unknown, as a result of an internet blackout. Sudanese doctors have reported a series of other injuries from beatings, suffocation on tear gas and being run over. [Interruption.]

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes if there is one Division in the House, or 25 minutes if two Divisions happen, as expected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

The debate may now continue until 4.26 pm.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Thank you, Ms Bardell. It is a pleasure to be back. Picking up where I left off, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Islington North, the types of human rights violations that we are currently seeing in Sudan are entirely consistent with that country’s long and documented history of abuses against protesters, human rights defenders and those perceived as political opponents of the regime. In addition to the questions I asked regarding Tigray, I would appreciate if, in replying to the debate, the Minister would tell me what contact, if any, has been made with the leaders of the military coup regarding the detention of the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet. What assessment has her Department made of the impact of the coup on the stability of the region as a whole? Has she or her Department had any contact with Sudan’s nearest neighbours about the potential impact they think this coup will have on them? Would she clarify the current position on UK arms exports to Sudan and if and how, in light of the coup, that will be reviewed? Likewise, on the levels of military support currently being provided by the UK to the Sudanese army, how does she see the coup affecting that?

To follow up the point from the hon. Member for Putney, what use is the Government planning to make of Magnitsky sanctions against military leaders in Sudan? If I could add to that Ethiopia and Eritrea as well, which are complicit in these appalling violations of human rights, both in Sudan and Tigray. Finally, I want to thank once again the right hon. Member for Islington North for securing this debate and the hon. Members for Rotherham, for Tewkesbury and for Putney for their contributions. It is vital that this debate is not allowed to slide off the agenda and lose public attention. People are depending on us to keep it in the spotlight. I am glad to be part of that this afternoon.

Elections Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

In its current form, without the amendments, the Bill allows promoters of electronic material to avoid placing an imprint on the material if it is not “reasonably practicable” to do so. Instead, it allows the imprint to appear

“in a location that is directly accessible from the electronic material.”

The amendment would make things clearer for voters so that material is more transparent, and allows voters to make more informed decisions.

As evidenced in Scotland’s recent parliamentary elections, the clause will in practice lead to almost all imprints appearing on a promoter’s website or home page rather than on the actual material. I do not feel that is strong enough. It cannot be classed as an imprint if the voter has to go and seek that information on the home page of a website. For most observers of the material, there will be no discernible change from the situation as we see it now—they will not be able to see a promoter’s details. It should be a requirement that imprints appear on the material itself. It would bring digital material in line with the imprints on printed material, where political parties have to include an imprint on every single piece of content.

While it is positive that Scotland’s recent parliamentary elections were the first in the UK to be conducted with a digital imprint rule in place, it was disappointing that a loophole was left in the legislation, which is now being carried forward into the Government’s Elections Bill. All political parties in Scotland took advantage of the loophole in May, placing an imprint on their home page and not necessarily on the material that was being promoted. This provision does not provide any security against sharing, downloading and re-promoting, where many voters will see material second or third hand as organic content as it spreads over social media.

Numerous stakeholders wrote to the Minister to highlight their concerns. I have certainly seen concerns expressed by the Electoral Reform Society, Fair Vote UK and Transparency International, who have highlighted to elections offices in Scotland that there is a risk that the imprint may be lost or removed, deliberately or accidentally, when the material is shared. A significant amount of sharing happens off the platform, as users download videos before resharing them on messaging apps that are often encrypted. The imprint is then, of course, disconnected from the content. This is a huge loophole; it could be the equivalent of attaching an offline political ad’s imprint using a paperclip. The first recipient would then clearly and inconspicuously remove it before showing anyone else. It is essential that the imprint be embedded so that it is always connected to the political advertisement. I urge the Government to close the loophole and make it clear that the video, image or online campaign materials must contain a clear imprint within the material, as is common practice with many political video advertisements in countries such as the United States.

These sensible and pragmatic amendments would close a loophole that we have seen in Scotland and stop the legislation being implemented for UK-wide elections with a glaring loophole in it.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Very briefly, we will support the amendments. There is no doubt that as a Parliament and a country we are behind the curve and are playing catch-up with those who are experts in digital campaigning. What we do have in our armoury is the demand for transparency. That is all we asking for here: transparency on who is funding and who is the source of these digital political advertisements. That is essential.

We have concerns about what the Government mean by “reasonably practicable”. We need a higher threshold than that. I fear that it would be far too easy for people who are expert in such matters to get around that and to present a convincing argument to the laity on what is reasonable and practicable and what is not. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood was right that we have an opportunity to get this right, or certainly to start to close that gap.

The Scottish Parliament elections showed that parties and campaigners largely understood the regulations and were able to comply with them. Anyone who followed those elections, particularly on Twitter, could not have failed to see every candidate changing their Twitter bio during the campaign to explain that. People understood it and people did it.

We have to be alive to the fact that there are people out there who are far more advanced in their technology and their understanding than we are. We should be closing every loophole available to them, to ensure that transparency is increased and that there is no way for them to come out. So we will support amendment 87 and 88.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Government are opposed to amendments 87 and 88 because they seek to remove a much-needed element of flexibility in the digital imprint regime for campaigners. Under our proposals, an imprint must be included as part of the material being promoted. Only when it is not reasonably practicable to do so can the imprint be in an alternative location—one that must be directly accessible from the material.

We have looked at this issue closely. Clause 37 is not a loophole for campaigners to exploit, to avoid including an imprint in the material. Instead, it is a reasonable and practical provision that ensures that campaigners are able to comply with the requirement to include an imprint in digital material, regardless of the digital platform they are using. This is an essential provision that must be retained.

As Members will know from their own experience of campaigning online, there will be many instances where it is impractical to include an imprint within the material itself. For example, a text-based tweet on Twitter could constitute material that requires an imprint, but given the character limit, including an imprint would leave little room for anything else. That is why, under our provisions, where it is not reasonably practicable, a promoter could instead comply with the rules by including an imprint in a location directly accessible from the material. That could be done by including a hyperlink in the material or by placing the imprint in a user’s Twitter biography.

The Government are mindful that the digital imprint regime must strike the right balance between increasing transparency in digital campaigning and having a regime that is proportionate and enforceable. The Opposition’s amendments would undermine those efforts as they do not provide for any flexibility on the location of the imprint. That could have the unintended effect of incentivising campaigners to avoid certain digital platforms or mediums for a campaign, due to the unreasonable burden of doing so.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said that there was another loophole in terms of material being republished that would not include the imprint. That is not the case. Clause 37 does cover republished material—I am not sure whether she has a different interpretation—and I will come on to republished material when we debate clause 37, when I will explain more fully how the clause does that.

Digital campaigning has become an integral part of campaigners’ efforts to communicate messages and ideas to voters. It must continue to be facilitated, while providing the electorate with increased transparency about who is promoting campaigning material online and on whose behalf. Our provisions do that. For all the reasons that I have outlined, the Government oppose the amendments

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

To be fair, I have already made that point. I am very happy to submit myself to the electorate under any proportional system that the Government want to introduce. The hon. Gentleman can be sure of the SNP’s support for a Bill introducing such a system; we have said that many times in this House.

The experience of preferential voting in Scotland is that results can change, and that has not always been to the SNP’s advantage. In fact, owing to the nature of Scottish politics at the moment, there is a clear trend with transfers. Where the SNP is a voter’s first preference, they cast their vote for that party. That is the very clear trend. In fact, in the ward that I mentioned, the SNP won the vote in the recent by-election, under first past the post; we got the most votes. We had an excellent candidate in Abdul Bostani. He got the most first preferences, but because of transfers, he lost out, so that ward is now represented by two Labour councillors, one Green councillor and one SNP councillor. It was a Conservative vacancy, incidentally; I say that for anyone who has not turned up to enough of the Committee sittings. That proves my point on the issue on which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was trying to catch me out. It proves the value of preferential voting systems.

Ultimately, it is for England’s Members to make a determination about what electoral system is used by their local authorities, but Government Members have to think very carefully about the consequences of this.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Does my hon. Friend agree that any lingering doubt that any of us may have had about the Government’s motivation in introducing the Bill is done away with by the parachuting in of this new clause? It is utterly self-serving, completely politically partisan and fundamentally undemocratic. Furthermore, does he agree that we and our colleagues should get out of here as quickly as possible, because Scotland needs to escape this nonsense?

[Patrick Grady]

If by “here”, my hon. Friend means the Union, yes, I entirely agree; if he means this Committee Room, I am afraid I do not agree, because I know how desperate Sir Edward is to chair our final sittings next Wednesday, so it is important that the Committee takes as long as it can to consider every one of these new clauses in great detail. I therefore look forward to all the speeches from the Conservative Back-Bench members of the Committee, who will now rise in defence of this major constitutional change that the Government want to bring forward. When they do, I urge them to reflect on the growing divergence that we have spoken about. This is not a levelling up or a coming together, but a growing apart of the constituent parts of the country, which have pretty fundamentally different perspectives on how democracy is, and should be, done. Although it is not for SNP Members to tell Members from England how their local elections should be determined and run, they ought to think about the issue carefully before they cast their vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

To correct the record, I said that it is utterly self-serving, and completely politically partisan, and fundamentally undemocratic.

[Kemi Badenoch]

And I still reject the hon. Gentleman’s point. The fact is that we have a Labour Mayor at the moment; we have had more Labour Mayors than Conservative Mayors; and first past the post gives accountability and strength to the people who are elected.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 11—Automatic Voter Registration—

“(1) Registration officers must take all reasonable steps to ensure that all persons eligible to register to vote in elections in the United Kingdom are so registered.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations require public bodies to provide information to registration officers to enable them to fulfil their duty under subsection (1).

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) must apply to the following public bodies—

(a) HM Revenue and Customs;

(b) the Department for Work and Pensions;

(c) the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency;

(d) the National Health Service, NHS Wales and NHS Scotland;

(e) schools and further and higher education institutions;

(f) local authorities;

(g) HM Passport Office;

(h) police forces;

(i) the TV Licensing Authority;

(j) Job Centre Plus;

(k) the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Local Communities;

(l) the Department for Transport;

(m) the Department for Health and Social Care;

(n) the Home Office; and

(o) the Ministry of Justice.

(4) Regulations under subsection (2) may also apply to other public bodies.

(5) Registration officers must—

(a) use the information provided by the public bodies listed in regulations under subsection (3) to register otherwise unregistered persons on the appropriate electoral register or registers, or

(b) if the information provided does not contain all information necessary to register a person who may be eligible, contact that person for the purpose of obtaining the required information to establish whether they are eligible to register and, if so, register them on the appropriate electoral register or registers.

(6) If a registration officer has registered a person under subsection (5), the officer must notify that person within 30 days and give that person an opportunity to correct any incorrect information.

(7) Where a person is registered under subsection (5), that person shall be omitted from the edited register unless that person notifies the registration officer to the contrary.

(8) Nothing in this section affects entitlement to register to vote anonymously.

(9) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to registration officers on fulfilling their duties under this section.”

This new clause would require registration officers to enter eligible voters on the register, and provide for them to receive the necessary information from a number of public bodies.

New clause 13—Voter registration at universities and colleges—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations require universities and colleges to provide to registration officers the information they hold that is required for the officers to register their students to vote.

(2) Universities and colleges must share with each student the information relating to the student that the university or college proposes to provide to the relevant registration officer, and must give students the opportunity to withhold consent to the provision of the information.

(3) If a student withholds consent under subsection (2), the university or college must not send their information to the registration officer.

(4) Nothing in this section affects entitlement to register to vote anonymously.

(5) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to registration officers, universities and colleges on fulfilling their functions under this section.”

This new clause would require universities and colleges to submit to registration officers the information necessary to register their students to vote.

[Brendan O'Hara]

For all the rancour and argument that there has been in this Committee over the last few weeks, I think we all agree that voting is a fundamental democratic right that has to be protected. As it is a fundamental democratic right, surely it is incumbent on those in power to seek to maximise participation right across our society and to encourage everyone in society to have their say and make their voice heard. It is our job in this House to ensure that the citizens we represent can exercise that democratic right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

I rise to speak to new clauses 11 and 13, which are tabled in my name. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have had discussions about the security of elections, and there has been much talk about whether individuals can fiddle results and how elections can be stolen. I tabled the new clauses with the hope of making our elections more secure, because we know that when the electoral register is more accurate and more complete, it is harder for malign actors to fiddle it round with just a few votes. At the moment, having 9 million voters either missing entirely or registered incorrectly is a weakness in our democratic system. It is a move to improve the security of our elections to have a more accurate electoral register.

I liked the point made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute: we do not register to pay tax, so why do we register to vote? I believe that it is very important to vote, and I tell anybody who will listen how important it is to take part in our elections, but I am aware that many people do not have figures like me in their lives—they are probably grateful for it. Given that we know we can have automatic voter registration and a more accurate electoral register, it strikes me as utterly bizarre that we would not want that—that we would not want a more accurate electoral register and not want to know that when we go to the country everyone who should be registered to vote can vote and hopefully does vote. I would like to see increased voter turnout, but at the moment people are falling at the first hurdle when they find that they are not on the electoral register.

New clause 13 is specifically about colleges and universities, because we know that younger voters are far less likely to be registered than older voters. There is a real gap.

[Brendan O'Hara]

The hon. Lady has reminded me of our very first evidence session and what she said to Richard Mawrey QC, which was that increasing turnout and participation makes fraud harder. Much of the Government’s case in this whole debate has been about stopping fraud and cheating, and in response to her question, Richard Mawrey said,

“that is absolutely right, because fraud is obviously a relatively risky occupation, and the more bogus votes you have to put in, the more difficult it is.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 11, Q9.]

He agreed entirely with the hon. Lady that to widen participation and to increase the franchise is to diminish fraud. Does she agree that automatic voter registration would do exactly that and exactly what the Government have been calling for?

[Cat Smith]

I thank the hon. Member for reminding us of the evidence that we heard at the beginning of the Committee, or that at least some of us heard—those of us who were listening or who were members of the Committee at that point.

The new clauses—I agree with that tabled by the SNP, too—are all about improving the security of our elections. We did not spend so many hours of our lives debating clause 1, on voter ID, with the Government arguing consistently about the security of elections, only for them to look at these new clauses, which deal with just that, and say, “Well, not those ones.” One could say that it is starting to look a little partisan.

I implore the Minister to look carefully at the new clauses. I appreciate that she is new to the role, and I would be very willing to open a dialogue with her to find ways to get those missing millions on to the electoral roll, because I believe that cross-party consensus can be found. I do not think any member of the Committee would argue that people should be missing from the electoral roll. Our electoral roll should be accurate in reflecting where this country’s voters are and whether they are registered, giving them the opportunity to go and vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Voting from age 16 in parliamentary elections—

“In section 1(1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (definition of voting age for parliamentary elections), for “18” substitute “16”.”

This new clause would lower the voting age to 16 in UK parliamentary elections.

[Brendan O'Hara]

It gives me enormous pleasure to move new clause 4, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North. The SNP believes passionately in this and has supported lowering the voting age for all UK elections since the 1960s.

Winnie Ewing, our first Member of Parliament, spoke about the franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds in her maiden speech way back in 1967, so we come at this as early adopters of the idea. It was with enormous pride that the SNP Government introduced the franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. That gave us all an enormous sense of pride.

To give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote is to say that they have an equal say and as much of a stake in the future of the country as any other age group—[Interruption.] Sorry, was there an intervention or was that just a general murmur? That Scottish independence referendum set a precedent: it said that 16 and 17-year-olds should have a say on all constitutional issues that affect them. Subsequently, their voting record in Scottish parliamentary and local elections has proven that they are no more or less capable than any other age group in society of making an informed decision. We are absolutely delighted that the Scottish example was followed very quickly by the Welsh Senedd. Now, Welsh 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in elections for their own national Parliament.

The same young people, however, alongside their peers in England and Northern Ireland, cannot have a say on which Government is elected to this place. It is striking that the issue has become so divisive and partisan, particularly given that the last UK-wide lowering of the voting age—from 21 to 18 years old back in 1967—attracted little or no attention or controversy. It is even more remarkable not only because the UK was one of the first democracies to lower the voting age to 18, but because there is now overwhelming proof that lowering the voting age to 16 and 17 years old works. Scotland has shown that it works, so this is not a step into the darkness or a wander into the unknown, but unlike the lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18 years old, it has become hugely controversial, divisive and partisan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Brendan O'Hara]

Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is not on the side I was looking for interventions from, but I will absolutely give way.

[Patrick Grady]

Indeed, but we have been arguing throughout the Bill that the Government are trying to suppress democracy, and this just goes to show that they are not even willing to allow their Back Benchers to engage with such a fundamentally important proposition. Is it not even more ironic that the Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament supported votes at 16? Perhaps what that demonstrates is that the Government view the devolved Assemblies as lesser places, so they can have strange experiments and expand the franchise if they want to because they do not have the supremacy that this place enjoys.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I admire my hon. Friend’s powers of provocation, and still the Government Members slumber. Still nobody gets to their feet—[Interruption.] I will take that intervention. No, it was not an intervention. It was just a chuntering from a sedentary position. Perhaps the Minister could speak for them all. Can she explain to us why this is okay for Scotland and Wales? Why, when it has been so demonstrably successful in both of those devolved Administrations, are the Government so absolutely opposed to extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds? The Conservative party in Scotland is okay with it. Someone will tell me if the Conservative party in Wales is not, but, as far as I am aware, it did not oppose it. Why is it okay for Scotland and Wales, and not okay for young people in England and Northern Ireland?

[Cat Smith]

I rise to speak to new clause 8, tabled by me and my hon. Friends. It was good timing for the SNP spokesperson to open the debate on the age of enfranchisement. The Labour party would extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. The Welsh Labour Government have done it, and we have seen it work well for a number of years in Scotland. We know that the record of voting in the Scottish parliamentary and local elections proved that 16 and 17-year-olds are more than capable of casting their votes and making informed decisions.

Since this year’s Senedd elections, Welsh 16 and 17-year-olds can now vote for their Members of the Senedd. The experience of the Scottish referendum showed that, when given a chance, 16 and 17-year-olds have a higher rate of turnout than 18 to 24-year-olds, with 75% voting, and 97% say that they would vote in future elections. Only 3% said that they did not know. That flies in the face of some of the arguments that I have occasionally heard in opposition to this idea, although we have not heard any yet today, that say that young people would not be well informed. We know from analysis of the referendum in Scotland that 16 and 17-year-old voters accessed more information from a wider variety of sources than any other age group, so, arguably, they are incredibly well informed and not necessarily biased towards one political persuasion.

A lowering of the voting age has been called for many times over the years. I have called for it many times since I was elected. It would enable young people to have their first experience of voting, often when they are still in full-time education. I know from studies that I have read over the years that if an elector votes the first time that they are eligible to vote in an election, they are far more likely to go on to develop a lifetime habit of voting and engaging in democracy. Again, it comes back to security in elections. One of the best ways we can make our elections safer and more secure is by increasing turnout. A good way of increasing turnout in the long term is to maximise the number of people whose first opportunities to vote come when they are still in full-time education, when they are still very much supported to vote.

At the moment, with the voting age for England and Northern Ireland coming in at 18—it has been 18 for UK general elections, and in Scotland and Wales as well—for many young people their first vote comes at a time of great change in their lives. They might be starting out in the world of work, might have gone off to university to study, or might have recently moved out of the family home. It is far better that we give young people an opportunity to vote and give the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds so that we can increase the chances of an electorate that is engaged in the process and that votes. That is better for the security of elections.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, who is clearly suffering from significant amnesia if he claims not to have heard the arguments on votes at 16. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said, the subject has been debated time and again, certainly every single year since 2010. There is no need for me to rehash the arguments. I ask him to ask his parliamentary researcher to research Hansard. Given our manifesto commitment to maintain the current franchise at 18, and having been elected on that principle, the Government have no plans to lower the voting age. We will not support the new clause.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Yet again the Minister is outrageously dismissive. A part of her job is to answer questions in Committee. This is an important Committee. To say, “Go and ask an SNP researcher” is an absolute outrage. Minister, you have a responsibility to this House to answer direct questions and I am afraid you have been sadly lacking in doing that. We will not push the clause to a vote this afternoon, but we will test the will of the House on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Voting by convicted persons sentenced to terms of 12 months or less

‘In section 3(1A) (exceptions to the disenfranchisement of prisoners) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, after “Scotland” insert “or a parliamentary election”.’—(Patrick Grady.)

This new clause would allow prisoners serving a sentence of 12 months or less to vote in UK parliamentary elections.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Patrick Grady]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

As with the other new clauses we are debating in this sequence, new clause 5 is about levelling up the franchise for election to the House of Commons with that of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020 is a genuinely historic piece of legislation. It introduced the widest franchise that has ever existed in these islands, possibly in western Europe. In May this year more people were eligible to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections—indeed, more people did vote—than in any other election ever held. That is even more remarkable given the context of the global pandemic and the severe restrictions on the practicalities of voting and the challenges that people faced in terms of social distancing. More people also voted for the SNP than had ever voted for the SNP before.

The 2020 Act was remarkable. It included, as we have just discussed, votes at 16, and the extension that we will come on to. It also included a small number of prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or less. The Electoral Commission reckoned from electoral returning officers’ data that about 38 eligible prisoners had registered to vote in the election. It is a small number—probably it could be larger—but it is nevertheless significant. In 2005, the European Court of Human Rights found that the blanket ban on prisoner voting in the United Kingdom meant that the country was in breach of article 3, protocol 1, of the European convention on human rights. The Scottish Government therefore see the introduction of this provision as an important step towards compliance with that judgment and respecting the fundamental rights that exist even for people who have been incarcerated.

The legal system in Scotland also now exercises a presumption against short sentences, but that approach and the right to vote if serving a sentence of 12 months or less are both rooted in the principles of inclusion and a desire for rehabilitation. There is therefore not only a human rights imperative to the new clause—to bring the United Kingdom further into line with the judgment handed down by the European Court of Human Rights—but the importance of aligning the franchise across the different legislatures of these islands. That is something that the Government ought to consider and support, although I suspect we will hear the opposite.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

On the contribution that refugee communities can and do bring to Scottish society, will my hon. Friend join me in acknowledging and congratulating the contribution made by the Syrian community on Bute? They fled an atrocious, most awful situation in their homeland to come to Bute and are now business owners. Their children have grown, come through the school system and are now at university. These people work and contribute to Scottish society in every single respect, as every other Scot does. The difference is that they cannot vote when it comes to choosing a Government in this place.

[Patrick Grady]

I absolutely echo everything my hon. Friend says about the incredible contribution of Syrian refugees, particularly in his constituency but in others as well. Refugees from other parts of the world were delighted at the opportunity to take part in the Scottish Parliament elections in May and would dearly love the opportunity to make their voices heard in elections to this place, and indeed to stand as candidates. We spoke about a by-election held in a ward within my constituency boundary, Partick East/Kelvindale. Abdul Bostani, the SNP candidate who achieved a plurality of votes but was unsuccessful because of the preferential voting system, is a refugee from Afghanistan. Our proportional representation list in Glasgow was headed by Roza Salih, one of the “Glasgow Girls”, originally from Kurdistan, who has fought for the rights of refugees. What greater message of tolerance and inclusion can we send than by welcoming people in that situation right into the heart of our democratic system? Equally, what opposite message do we send when such people are excluded, denied the opportunity to vote and denied other fundamental rights that we should have as human beings—rights that cannot really be taken away from them but that are simply denied to them? The right to vote ought to be such a right.

Again, there are two principles behind the new clause. First, the right to vote—that innate right to participation and freedom of speech. In modern democracies, it is understood that the right to vote is part of that fundamental right to freedom of speech. Secondly, levelling up the franchise. I do not think the Minister properly addressed this point in her response to previous new clauses; maybe she can attempt to do so in her response to this new clause. Why are the Government content with, and why do they welcome, the diverging franchise? More people than ever before are able to vote in elections to the Scottish Parliament, and indeed to the Senedd Cymru, whereas the overall effect of the Bill, as we said right back on Second Reading, will be fewer people having the opportunity to vote, because the Government are going out of their way to make it more difficult. Why do they see that diverging franchise as a good thing or something that they do not need to take an opinion on? I look forward to the Minister explaining why the Government want to continue the hostile environment for refugees in regard to their right to vote and responding to those other points on the divergence of the franchise.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North, who laid out a compelling and detailed case as to why extending the voting right to foreign nationals and widening the franchise is so important. What we have seen is a widening of the franchise in Scotland at exactly the same time as this place seeks to narrow the franchise.

In February 2020, the Scottish Parliament passed legislation extending the vote beyond EU nationals and Commonwealth citizens to include foreign nationals with leave to remain and refugees, adding 55,000 people to the register altogether. That is in stark contrast to what is taking place down here at Westminster. The Scottish Parliament did so because Scotland wants to be that open, welcoming country and that place that is home to anyone who wants to call it home, and it wants to recognise the enormous contribution that EU nationals have made to our country, our society and our general wellbeing. We want to welcome those EU nationals who want to be part of Scotland and we want to give them a stake in, and a responsibility for, the future of the country. The Scottish Parliament has made the decision that anyone who is legally resident in Scotland will have a say in our future, and that is only right.

However, while the Scottish Parliament and Scotland in general seek to reassure EU nationals that they are valued and welcome and we view them as an integral part of our future, the UK Government, at best, use them as a bargaining chip and, at worst, see them as an inconvenience. They may be allowed to pick fruit, or to drive lorries in an emergency, but they most certainly will not be treated as equal or valued citizens. We have got used to having a wide, diverse and growing franchise in Scotland, because that is good for our country and for our democracy. I strongly advise the UK Government to look to Scotland for a lead and to make the status of EU nationals equal across the various Administrations of these islands, because that is ultimately the right thing to do and it is only fair that they do it.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

We have been talking so far about making the Bill less confusing and more streamlined to enable more people to vote—that being the aim—as well as about ensuring that voting has integrity. It will be very confusing to be on the doorstep telling people to vote, depending on whichever agreement we have at the time with different former colleagues in the EU. It would really simplify voting if the new clause were agreed or could at least be considered as the Bill goes forward. It will be very difficult for people to work out whether they possess these voting rights at the time each election happens. To ensure that more people vote and that it is as easy as possible to do so, voting should be as simple as possible, and allowing all EU nationals to vote is the simplest way.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Our position has always been that after our exit from the EU existing voting and candidacy rights should be maintained where possible. The new clause would extend the parliamentary franchise to EU citizens where no such rights previously existed, as I said during our debate on the previous amendments. Those who are nationals of a member state have never been able to vote in UK parliamentary elections by virtue of their EU citizenship. If an EU citizen becomes a British citizen, they will be eligible for the parliamentary franchise from that point. The right to vote in parliamentary elections and choose the next UK Government is rightly restricted to British citizens and those with the closest historical links to our country.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I thank the Minister for that pre-prepared paragraph. We will push this new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am not sure how Sir Edward Leigh, one of the other Chairs of the Committee, will feel about this, because I know that he was looking forward to chairing the final session next Wednesday. I will just have to keep this going until the rise of the House, and then for both sessions on Thursday, so that he has the opportunity to hear the Committee conclude its considerations. Otherwise, we will just have to get on with it as quickly as we can—I think we all need a break.

This is a relatively straightforward new clause, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to its principles, because it reflects the concerns that were expressed earlier when we considered part 3 and the powers of the Electoral Commission. The Government had real concerns that it was not an effective regulator—that it lacked teeth and was somehow not capable of exercising either the deterrent or the punishment when electoral offences took place. The new clause is a way of giving the commission the powers for which it asked, and to change the relatively arbitrary upper threshold of £20,000 that it can levy as a fine for certain offences to a much more proportionate response, either as a proportion of the total spend of the organisation or individual being penalised, or to a maximum of £500,000, whichever is greater.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Has my hon. Friend, like me, barely slept at night since hearing the tales of widespread personation, voter fraud, intimidation and postal vote harvesting—all manner of fraud, theft and deception—that came from Government Members in the first two or three days, when they used to participate in the Committee? Does he share my confidence that they will look at what is contained in the new clause and support it in order to give the Electoral Commission the full force of the law, and so that the guilty will not go unpunished, as they have insisted throughout, and a £500,000 penalty is just the thing to do it?

[Patrick Grady]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and the point about proportionality is very important. We have heard about the rampant corruption in the UK electoral system and the complete inadequacy of the police, the Electoral Commission, local election returning officers and so on. A picture has been painted throughout the passage of the Bill. Why would the Government be content to keep the maximum level of fine at £20,000, when the Electoral Commission says it is really not adequate to provide either a deterrent or a punishment?

One example on which everyone in this room will find a point of consensus was when the Liberal Democrats were fined £20,000. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] They are not here to defend themselves—it is a wee shame. In all seriousness, the investigation that year found that 307 payments totalling £184,676 were missing from the Liberal Democrats’ spending return without a reasonable excuse. In return, they were fined £20,000, which was the maximum that the Electoral Commission could levy.

I would not suggest that is the mindset of the Liberal Democrats, but less scrupulous participants in our electoral process might think that £20,000 was a price worth paying for not reporting figures that were nearly 10 times that amount. To be clear, I am not saying that was the case with the Liberal Democrats, but perhaps other, less scrupulous participants might adopt that attitude.

We should adopt a more proportionate system by simply raising the maximum threshold. We are all familiar with the scene in “Austin Powers” where Dr Evil demands a ransom of $1 million as part of his nefarious plan to take over the Earth, and everybody laughs because it is not a huge amount of money in the modern world that he has woken up in. Similarly, a fine of £20,000 does not adjust for the rate of inflation and cost of inflation—not least the increases that we are experiencing as a result of the Tories’ disastrous Brexit policies.

A fine of £20,000 is not as high as it could be, so a maximum of £500,000 is slightly more realistic in the modern world, and then the proportionality of the 5% gives the Electoral Commission that extra flexibility and additional teeth that it might need to serve as a deterrent or to take action in the event of a breach. I have no doubt that the Minister will have lots of creative reasons for rejecting the new clause, and I look forward to hearing what they are.

Elections Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Fleur Anderson]

In many respects, supporting good causes is done by campaigning. For many charities, the causes of the symptoms they are seeking to address will be back in Government policy. The policies that we decide all the time obviously have an immediate impact on people on the ground. Charities work with those people and need to change the policies to change the issue they are addressing.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that charities by their nature have expertise and understanding—for example, of homelessness, third-world debt, climate change, or whatever—that we in this House have to learn from? The idea that they should be restricted simply to raising funds to alleviate an issue, rather than trying to engage and inform the debate, is simply preposterous.

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree. For example, during this Bill Committee, we have relied on expert advice from the Royal National Institute of Blind People about the impact of these changes on people who are blind or partially sighted across this country. As the representative organisation of those people, who will be affected by the Bill in how they vote, the RNIB should be giving us expert advice. In the future, having to work out how much money it has spent jointly and severally with other organisations, which tier it falls into and whether it will get on to the list will all have an effect on whether or not we receive that expertise, which helps us to be much better decision makers.

When we consider that the Conservative party spent £16 million in the last general election, we see that lowering the spending threshold for groups to register during an election from £20,000 to £10,000 is clearly aimed at deterring smaller organisations, community groups and single-issue groups, which the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute mentioned, such as groups concerned with refugees, disability rights, women’s rights and LGBTQ issues. Community groups campaigning on a single issue in our constituencies may fear running afoul of changing election rules, which will have that chilling effect.

I ask the Minister whether there will be a review of the impact of the lobbying Act as we go forward with the Elections Bill, because I think that they go together. To know what impact the lobbying Act has had on campaigning will be very instructive. Perhaps there has been such a review already, and I did not know about it. If not, will there be a review of the impact of that Act and this legislation on campaigning, particularly single-issue campaigning?

If existing party activity is redefined as joint campaigning, smaller unions that spend only very small amounts on regulated activity and do not come close to meeting the threshold for registering with the Electoral Commission could find themselves having to register and submit a complex and comprehensive return, despite having not spent any of their own funds on a campaign. Should not they be spending their money on frontline service provision and advocacy, rather than filling in complex and comprehensive returns that do not add to transparency but only decrease our democracy? This will be a huge bureaucratic burden on small organisations; it is both completely unnecessary and overly burdensome.

Labour’s amendment 76 seeks to reduce the chilling effect and remove the burdens of additional regulation by exempting registered charities and community interest companies from the notification and registration requirements. In the community organisation that I worked for just before I became an MP, there was a fantastic organisation called SEN Talk—special educational needs talk.

For years, I supported it in becoming a CIC. It is a long process. The organisation had to go through a lot of measures and have a lot of transparency. It was doing a lot of frontline work with parents and children with special educational needs, but also it was advocating to the council for the changes that it needed in order to operate on behalf of parents, and to the Government, and working on Select Committee reports, for example. If that organisation were asked to then submit returns but did not know exactly when the election period was and feared falling afoul of this, it would have to cut down on its frontline services or not take part in the advocacy that really does help it to stand up for children with special educational needs. It would put that organisation in a real bind, and it is just one example.

This proposal has also, as I have mentioned, been called for by Bond—the overseas aid network—and several other third-sector organisations. Setting up a registered charity takes considerable time and effort, and these entities must already, by law, identify their trustees—or, in the case of CICs, their directors—and publish their accounts. There are already robust transparency initiatives regulating charity governance, so it is highly unlikely that those seeking to exert undue influence in elections would pursue this approach as a means of evading regulation. I would like to know how many conversations the Minister has had with CICs, in particular, about the effect of the Bill.

Registered charities cannot exist for solely political purposes, and charities that do engage in political activity in pursuit of their charitable objects are already closely monitored by the Charity Commission. These organisations would still have to register with the Electoral Commission as a non-party campaigner if they met the existing spending thresholds.

Amendment 77 would recognise the need for all campaigners at elections to submit to electoral regulation by the elections regulator, and to be transparent about their purpose if they are seeking to campaign to influence voters at election time—but without duplicating the compliance burden for those organisations that already routinely are required to be transparent.

I urge all hon. Members to support these very reasonable amendments, which would allow small organisations and single-issue campaigns to continue to campaign.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Absolutely. Where are those decisions ultimately made? Here, in rooms like this one. We are engaging with charitable organisations on this Bill. We are being advised and lobbied on matters in the Bill by organisations that are making representations to us, have frontline experience, and are delivering in a whole range of sectors. We have heard from domestic organisations and from Bond, the international development network.

I am sure all Committee members have diligently read the written evidence submitted by Bond, EB14. I strongly encourage them to do so, because it explains the challenges and difficulties faced by these organisations, which are having to comply with election registration regulations and reporting requirements, and finding it incredibly difficult. There is evidence in that document—we heard it from the hon. Member for Putney as well—that many organisations are already choosing simply to step back, so their voices are not being heard. That goes back to the narrative of what exactly the Bill is trying to achieve, in terms of suppressing debate and political participation in this country.

Although clause 24 is not quite as draconian as clause 23, it is still pretty oppressive. Amendment 96, tabled by the SNP, could achieve much the same as the Labour party amendments in exempting registered charities from these incredibly stringent new reporting requirements. The threshold of £10,000 could easily be reached once everything that had to be calculated was taken into account, such as staff time, resources, and collaboration with other organisations.

It would be easy to hit that threshold, potentially unexpectedly. The charity would then face another burden if it was sanctioned. There have been examples, referred to in the written evidence, of charities that inadvertently crossed the threshold and did not report that appropriately, and then faced fines. That is fair enough, if that is the regime, but it is another cost. That is money that people have given to those charities. It might be taxpayers’ money, received through gift aid, that has to be spent on fines, compliance and regulation, deterring the charity from political participation and delivery of frontline services, when it already exists in a rightly strong and tightly regulated environment.

The Government should accept the amendments. If they genuinely believe in levelling up, surely they want to hear from organisations that have frontline experience of the difficulties and challenges being faced by ordinary people day to day, and that are identifying solutions that will help to raise standards in society and level up. In fact, we are seeing a levelling down, suppression of debate, sticking with the status quo, and a message not to challenge anything coming from the Government who happen to be in power now.

We have learned in this Committee and in others that the chances of an amendment succeeding are middling to none. Nevertheless, I look forward to the Minister’s response to my points.

[Brendan O’Hara]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right, though I admire his endless optimism that the chances are middling to none. He is far more optimistic than me that the Government will ever move an inch. That does not mean that the arguments cannot be made. Indeed, there is every reason for the arguments to be made.

At general elections, every single one of us has been made to think, question and commit one way or another to an idea coming from a third party or campaigning organisation. That is exactly how it should be in a democracy. When we put ourselves forward for election, people have a right to know where we stand on the big issues of the day—whether that is homelessness, third-world debt or support for those suffering domestic violence—and where better to do that, for a charity or third party organisation, than a general election? People are not asking us just as individuals; they are asking all those who put themselves forward for election in this country where they stand, because our public have an absolute right to know that.

The real question is about the motivation of the Government in introducing the measure in the first place. Campaigning is a core function of many organisations. It allows them to highlight areas of concern and contribute to the wider public discourse, from a position of authority and experience, from which every one of us benefits. We have all heard from numerous third party organisations of their concerns, but these measures will make an already complicated area even more confusing and burdensome for those issue-based campaigning organisations. They face new rules that may see them inadvertently fall foul of legislation and, as a result, step a long way back from their activity. They will shrink back from that public debate, which can only harm our democracy. That will dampen public debate, and the voice of those marginalised groups they represent will be further diminished.

Organisations will quite rightly engage in campaigning 12 months prior to a general election, but the vast majority of that campaigning will not be focused on that general election. Those organisations campaign every day of the year, every year of a decade. That is what they are there to do; they are there to inform and to advocate.

What is really troubling here is the purpose test and whether it can be passed. It is confusing. The legislation says that the purpose test can be passed if it

“can reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for or against political parties or categories of candidates, including political parties or categories of candidates who support or do not support particular policies”.

That is all well and good, but the confusion arises because that is not the intention of the charity of a third sector organisation. The interpretation comes from someone else, and it is their perception of what counts as political campaigning. Even if the charity is clear that that is not its intention, it could be decreed by someone else that it is. The result is that the charities will shrink from those areas of concern—homelessness, domestic abuse—for fear of falling foul of the legislation. Many of us on this side of the Committee think that that was probably the Government’s intention from the start.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Amendments 76 and 90 would exempt from the transparency requirements provided by the lower tier of expenditure registered charities, charities exempt from registering with the Charities Commission, and community interest companies spending more than £10,000 across the UK but less than the existing notification thresholds. Amendment 77 would allow those groups to forgo the usual notification process for the lower tier and instead provide only their charity or company number.

The Government are clear that any group spending significant amounts in UK elections should be subject to scrutiny. That is essential to ensure transparency for voters and to maintain the level playing field for all participants in elections. It is therefore right that all types of third party campaigner should be subject to the same sets of rules where they are trying to influence the electorate. The amendments would undermine those principles, and the Government cannot accept them.

Additionally, third party campaigner regulations do, and should, focus on the purpose of campaigning activities conducted by all organisations, not just specific types of organisation. Charities and CICs can always choose to spend less than £10,000 in the period before an election if they do not want to register with the Electoral Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

I simply do not accept the argument made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North. He asked how charities would know when an election was forthcoming, but he also said that charities specifically are doing that around election time. He is making two almost mutually exclusive points. The fundamental point made by SNP Members was about charity participation in elections, rather than political finance transparency, which is what the Bill is about.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I ask the Minister a very, very simple question. How will a charity or any other organisation—

[Patrick Grady]

Or a Back-Bench MP.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Indeed, or a Back-Bench MP—how will they know when they are in that 12-month period before a general election?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The fact is that we all have a fairly good idea of when an election will be. Although snap elections can be called, the fact is that everybody will be in the same situation.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am not giving way again on that point. Third party campaigning groups will not have any special intelligence. People will need to take that into account when they are campaigning politically. People seeking to influence the electorate should all be subject to the same laws.

The debate is not about whether charities are nice groups or nice individuals, which is 50% of the argument made by SNP Members. To be perfectly honest, it sounds like Opposition Members want charities to make their political arguments for them, because they think they are more acceptable.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am no longer giving way on that point.

That is not how we want to regulate our politics or our electorate. Charities should make points on their own—not in the way that SNP Members are saying, as if there are other political reasons that would be helpful to them, rather than the Government. They accuse us of playing politics, but it sounds to me as though they are the ones doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. Lady knows that I cannot answer any questions about when elections are forthcoming. That does not change the premise of our argument. I do not know; she does not know; charities do not know; no third party campaigners know. The law is equal for everybody. I am afraid we simply do not accept the argument that there should be special rules and exemptions for particular groups.

Charities can supply the relevant information, and the amendment would increase the administrative burden for the Electoral Commission—a point it has made several times—and not allow it to obtain all the necessary information covered in the notification requirements. Under the amendment, charities and community interest companies would not have to provide the name of a responsible person. That information cannot be obtained through Companies House or the Charity Commission because it is specific to electoral law.

It is important to identify a person who will be responsible for ensuring compliance with electoral law. Naming a responsible person also acts to protect third parties from being liable for expenditure that has not been authorised by that person. Allowing charities and community interest companies to be exempt from that requirement would risk their duty of compliance and protection falling away, which would not be right. In the light of the reasons I have given, and the minimal burden on charities that the measures will generate, we oppose the amendment.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I have a question for the Minister, which I think is a perfectly reasonable and fair question to ask on behalf of charities. How do they know right now that they are not 12 months out from a general election? How do they know where their spending is in relation to the next general election, and that they have not already exceeded the threshold? The question is whether she thinks it is fair for charities inadvertently to fall foul of the legislation, with their having absolutely no way of knowing where they stand because the Government have changed the rules around about them. Will she address the basic issue of fairness to our charities?

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

Third party campaigners are subject to limits on their controlled expenditure in the periods leading up to parliamentary elections in the UK, including devolved elections. The time during which those spending limits apply are known as regulated periods and are 12 months long for UK parliamentary elections and four months long for the relevant parliamentary elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Regulated periods can be longer where they overlap. It is right that any campaign that could influence the electorate at an election should be regulated and subject to a spending limit. While significant amounts of spending might take place following the announcement of a poll, elections are often known, rumoured or expected to take place long before the poll date is announced and a Parliament is dissolved, which is the point that we are debating.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Can the Minister explain how the House can legislate on the basis of a rumour of when a general election might be? How is that any way to run a country?

[Kemi Badenoch]

That is not what we are legislating on; that is a statement of fact. Just as with every intervention the hon. Gentleman has made, it is a point we all acknowledge that while elections are at expected times, they can happen at different times: earlier or there may be snap elections, though rare. That does not change the fundamental point under discussion.

Opposition Members seem to be annoyed that there is a regulated spending period at all. I am afraid that that is not going to change. Campaigning and political activity, which can occur up to 12 months or more in advance of an election, may have a significant influence on its outcome. Having a short regulated period, as proposed by the amendment, would mean that spending, which does influence the electorate, is likely to fall away from being regulated and reported. That fatally undermines the principle of transparency and spending limits.