Press Freedom and Safety of Protesters: India

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair for this afternoon’s debate, Mr Stringer. I am sure that I speak for everyone in thanking the House staff who have worked so hard to get Westminster Hall debates back up and running this afternoon. I thank all colleagues who have contributed to the debate, and I pay tribute to the tens of thousands of people from across the UK who have signed the e-petition, asking that we in this House take the time to consider the plight of Indian farmer protesters and the difficult situation of many journalists currently working in India.

I acknowledge in particular the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), and thank him for the thoughtful way he opened the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. As he said in his opening remarks, the issues are complex. It is important that we reiterate, and make it clear, that in today’s debate in the UK Parliament we have no locus on the merits or otherwise of the agriculture reform Acts passed by the Indian Parliament last year. The future of Indian agriculture is a matter entirely for the people of India and their Government.

Likewise, it is right that the Indian Government appropriately enforce law and order, and should protests cross the line into illegality, it is not our place to say that they cannot police that appropriately. But what is undeniable is that in a democracy the Indian Government have an obligation to uphold and defend the rights and freedoms guaranteed to her citizens by the Indian constitution. That includes the right to protest and the right to a free press: one that is not subject to harassment, intimidation, violence or state censorship. Therefore, while the internal political matter of agricultural reform is not a matter for this House to discuss, I do believe that on matters concerning international human rights, people outside India can, and indeed should, make their voices heard.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk said, since the start of the protests there have been numerous and widespread reports of violence being meted out against protesters by both the police and Government-supporting mobs. We have all read the reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and, indeed, other human rights organisations about the beatings, harassment, intimidation and unjustified detention of farmer protesters that have sadly escalated in recent weeks. Since the tractor rally and the violent clashes on 26 January, protest leaders have claimed that more than 100 people have gone missing as the Indian Government resorted to using laws of sedition to clamp down on protest. That move prompted the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to call on the Government to

“stop threatening, demonising, and arresting peaceful protesters and stop treating them as ‘anti-nationals’ or ‘terrorists”.

Amnesty International called for the

“immediate and unconditional release of activists and others who have been arrested for simply exercising their right to peaceful protest and for the government to stop the harassment and demonisation of protesters.”

In many ways, I am glad that the UK Government have called out the Indian Government. They have made their position clear: they will continue to champion human rights, and they regard the rights to peaceful protest, freedom of speech and a free press to be a vital part of any democracy.

As we heard from so many right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the crackdown against farmer protesters did not happen in isolation. It was coupled to a raft of draconian measures affecting the ability of the press to report freely what was happening. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) was right when he described the clashes on 26 January and how the Indian Government ordered mobile internet service to be suspended in the Delhi area where the farmer protests were ongoing, claiming that it was to maintain public safety. The move was quickly condemned by campaigners and trade unions, who pointed out that under international human rights law, Indian officials should not use broad, indiscriminate shutdowns to curtail the free flow of information or to harm people’s ability to assemble freely or express their political views. A few days after the suspension of those internet services, the Government actually ordered Twitter to suspend the accounts of hundreds of users, claiming that they were inciting violence. A report in The Guardian afterwards said that those accounts belonged to

“news websites, activists and actors”.

As we have heard, at about the same time, eight journalists covering the protests were arrested on what Human Rights Watch has described as utterly baseless criminal charges.

With eight journalists facing criminal charges including sedition, promoting communal disharmony and making statements prejudicial to national integration, it is right that we as an international community speak out in condemnation. As the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) pointed out, the arrest of the journalists came just before other detentions including that of the 22-year-old climate activist Disha Ravi, who was accused by the police of being a key conspirator, a formulator and a disseminator of a protest toolkit for farmers. Indeed, they also claimed that she shared that knowledge with Greta Thunberg.

I was struck when the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) suggested that what was happening was nothing unusual. I beg to differ. These draconian clampdowns on press freedom and individual freedom of expression have not just been condemned by international organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights watch; a whole raft of journalist groups in India have been unequivocal in their condemnation. The National Union of Journalists in India, the Editors Guild of India, the Press Club of India, the Indian Women’s Press Corps, the Kashmiri Journalists Association, the Delhi Union of Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, Reporters Without Boarders and the Indian Journalists Union have all released statements on the crackdown on press freedom and in support of the journalists covering it. As we heard, the International Press Institute has taken up the matter directly with the Prime Minister and has asked him to intervene.

As was said in the opening minutes of this debate, how India wants to organise its agricultural sector is entirely and exclusively a matter for the Indian Government and their people, but human rights abuses and the silencing of the press are a matter for us all. Rajat Khosla, senior director of research, advocacy and policy at Amnesty International, said:

“We have seen an alarming escalation in the Indian authorities’ targeting of anyone who dares to criticise or protest the government’s repressive laws and policies…The crushing of dissent leaves little space for people to peacefully exercise their human rights including the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly in the country.”

There has been an alarming escalation in the Indian authorities’ targeting of anyone who dares to criticise or protest against them. We add our voice to those in the international community and domestic organisations calling for the Indian Government immediately to stop their crackdown on the protesters, the farmers’ leaders and journalists. We want to see the immediate and unconditional release of all those who have been arrested and detained solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. The shutting down of the internet, the censoring of social media and the use of draconian laws against protesters and journalists who have been peacefully voicing opposition to the new laws and questioning the Government’s methods must immediately cease.

Freedom of speech, the right to protest and a free press are the hallmarks of a democratic society. A democracy cannot function if those fundamentals are under attack, suppressed or eroded. Right now, it appears that all is not well in the world’s largest democracy. It is up to the Indian Government to show their own people and the international community that they want to protect that democracy and create a country that works for all its citizens. I urge them to take heed of what has been said here this afternoon, and indeed across the world, look at their own actions and act for the benefit of all their citizens.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend will know that it is a long-standing convention that we do not discuss future proscriptions or sanctions. He makes a broader point about the international standing of Iran. I can only assume that Iran wishes to be brought back into the international fold, but, for that, its behaviour must change.

As I said, we regard the treatment of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other British dual national detainees to be completely unacceptable and we strongly urge the Iranian regime to do the right thing and release all British dual national detainees on humanitarian grounds so that they can return permanently to their families and loved ones.

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

Let me once again put on record the SNP’s unequivocal condemnation of the Iranian Government for the outrageous detention of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I repeat our call for her immediate and unconditional release. Nazanin, her husband Richard and their young daughter have been treated appallingly by the regime in Tehran. If, as the Minister says, this is the Prime Minister’s top priority, I feel she will be let down again, having been let down by him while he was Foreign Secretary.

The UK Government have finally acknowledged that the outstanding debt owed to Iran is a major factor in the ongoing illegal detention of Nazanin. What discussions have been had to explore practical and legal ways to repay the debt? What advice has the Department sought and received on whether that could be done in the form of humanitarian aid supplies?

[James Cleverly]

As I have said on a number of occasions, the debt, which we recognise, is unrelated. We are seeking ways to resolve this 40-year-old debt, but I am unwilling to go into further details about that as it is an ongoing situation. I would, however, echo the hon. Member’s point that the incarceration of all British dual national detainees in Iran is unacceptable and they should be released.

Integrated Activity Fund: Transparency

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I put on record that I am also all-party parliamentary group on democracy and human rights in the Gulf. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this important debate and thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part for their contributions this afternoon, for the way they have sought to get to the truth of exactly what this fund is and what it is being used for, and for shining a light on places where, frankly, the Government and the recipients of the money would rather a light not be shone.

Although this debate has been a useful exercise, it remains a matter of deep regret that in a democracy there should be such a lack of transparency about how the shadowy Integrated Activity Fund is being used that the only way that we as hon. Members can scrutinise it is to have the occasional debate every couple of years. I fear that, as always happens when the Government are asked about the fund, we are going to be fobbed off with the standard response that the IAF is being used for

“aquaculture, sport and culture, healthcare and institutional capacity building.”

Sadly, that old “Nothing to see here” answer has been the hallmark of the Government’s response ever since the fund was established. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) was absolutely spot on. The Government must think we button up the back if they are asking us to believe that sending money to the cash-rich states in the Gulf is, “to help to develop aquaculture and sporting activities—but don’t ask about it, because it’s a secret.”

We live in hope, however, and the Government should be aware that even the expected non-answers will not deter us from continuing to ask these hugely important questions. The secrecy and lack of transparency that surround this fund make a mockery of the Government’s claim to be pursuing an ethical foreign policy. An ethical foreign policy does not fund states that are complicit in human rights abuses, and then seek to deny elected representatives the right to scrutinise that.

How can it be remotely ethical to give money to regimes that are accused by many highly-respected international human rights organisations of routinely using torture and executing political dissidents? How can it be remotely ethical for a Government to do everything they can to prevent democratic scrutiny and avoid public accountability for what has been done in our name? The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—always a great champion of the rights of people across the world to practise their religion or belief—is correct when he points out that we do not believe that there is freedom of religion and the ability to practise one’s belief in those states, and we should not be funding states that deny that.

I am sure in his response, the Minister will say that the UK Government fully respect human rights and that he will condemn any form of torture and say that they are working to promote best practice among our allies. That is absolutely fine, and no one would disagree that they should be doing that. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said in his opening remarks, the problem is, if they are so confident about their position, why do they run a mile from any form of serious scrutiny?

Due to the Government avoiding scrutiny, it remains unclear where the money goes and what has been done, leading to the inevitable conclusion that they have something to hide and know that, should that truth get out, they would have plenty to answer for that would not be covered under the

“aquaculture, sport and culture, healthcare and institutional capacity building”

defence. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said that the Minister has to accept that hiding from public scrutiny is not a good look and only leads to further suspicion, and that the reason the UK keeps this out of the public eye is because they know that there would be outrage if the UK taxpayer discovered what their hard-earned cash was being spent on. If there is nothing to fear and nothing to hide, why this lack of scrutiny and transparency? Maya Foa, director of Reprieve, said:

“The only way for the British public to be confident their money is not leading to abuses abroad is for the government to publish a full and transparent account of projects we are funding and the human rights assessment for each.”

There is nothing in that that I can see a democratic Government could argue with.

Despite all the evidence of the human rights abuses that this money is going towards, the Government continue to give their unconditional political and economic support to many Gulf states. I think we should be asking more of our allies and friends. Surely we have a moral and ethical obligation to reassess any current aid relationship we have with states that stand accused of human rights violations.

I commend the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for calling out the double standards at play here, considering that we treat other states, quite rightly, as pariah states for how they treat their political dissidents. I fear that the United Kingdom stands accused of turning a blind eye to abuses when it believes it has something to gain.

Given that the opportunity to dig into the workings of the fund are extremely limited, in the time remaining I will ask the Minister a series of questions. He may wish to answer them this afternoon, but I am more than happy to receive a more considered written answer, so long as they do not contain the words

“aquaculture, sport and culture, healthcare and institutional capacity building.”

First, will the Minister accept that criticism of the fund is growing and will not go away? If the UK Government are so confident that the fund only funds lawful, peaceful and legitimate activities, will he explain what they have to fear from an open and independent review of how it is being used? Why, at a time of this supposedly ethical foreign policy, will he not agree to suspend the fund while it undergoes that independent review, in the hope of restoring public confidence? Why do the Government believe that there should be no transparency or independent democratic scrutiny of the activities of those who benefit from these funds? In what way do the Government believe that releasing the information about the activities of those receiving funding would threaten our relations with the GCC states?

The Government have claimed much credit for the human rights oversight bodies now operating in Bahrain, yet numerous human rights organisations have accused them of being complicit in torture and other serious abuses. Will the Government publish their internal evaluations and let Members of this House and the public see how they assess the recipients of IAF money and how they are making progress towards building those effective and accountable institutions? The UN committee against torture and the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy have revealed that those organisations have frequently failed to investigate and have actively shared confidential correspondences with Government bodies. They have been shown to be not only ineffective, but deeply compromised. Does the Minister not agree that those bodies provide the Bahraini Government with a veneer of reform, while achieving very little in the promotion of human rights?

The Government repeatedly claim that they benefit from an ongoing and genuine dialogue. If that is true, why have the Government been unable to come out to condemn the death sentences against torture victims in Bahrain? Why is the receipt of funding from the IAF not contingent on the states seeking it not executing people, including their own dissidents? What is Minister’s explanation for why two states in particular, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, which receive millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, are now executing more people, at a faster rate, than they were before receiving money from the IAF? Will the Government name all the bodies that receive funding, as well as those that deliver the funding? Will the Government provide a breakdown by country or activity? Do the Government believe that there is, currently and in the past, no IAF programme that has failed to comply with the UK’s human rights obligations?

Finally, I once again thank all the Members who have contributed today, and put on record my gratitude to, appreciation of, and respect for those human rights organisations and committed activists who, on behalf of us all, are shining a light where too many people do not want a light to be shone.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Robertson. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for securing the debate today. I am also grateful for the contributions of other hon. Members, and I will attempt to answer as many of the points that have been raised as possible.

The UK continues to look at ways of deepening our already strong and historic relationships with Gulf partners. Our 2015 strategy sought to increase our mutual security, prosperity and regional stability interests. In making that point, I reflect on the comment of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about doing things with a degree of humility, as well as the importance of doing them with a degree of sensitivity. He was right to highlight that. The UK Government seek to work alongside the GCC countries and to support and encourage a positive direction of travel in reforms there. However, being a hectoring bystander is probably not the most effective way to do that.

[Brendan O'Hara]

On being a hectoring bystander, I take the Minister’s point. We were paying through the nose to be that hectoring bystander. When there is transparency and accountability, that is when it becomes possible to hector, surely.

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and will address some of his points in my speech.

The creation of the Integrated Activity Fund in 2016 was part of the process to support that work to encourage and steer our friends in the GCC. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland highlighted the fact that they are for the most part wealthy countries, and a number of Members have questioned whether there should be any expenditure at all in the region. I remind Members that diplomacy is cost-efficient, but it is not free. If we want to make a positive difference and be a force for good in the world and in the region, we must recognise that it has to be paid for, but it is completely understandable that Members and the British public want the money to be spent ethically and effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I will attempt to address them in my speech.

As I was saying, this co-operation, which is to the benefit of the people of both the Gulf and the UK, is possible only because we are able to build strong and resilient partnerships with countries in the GCC. Of course, building trust has to be balanced with the desire for transparency—a point that various right hon. and hon. Members have made. I take issue with a comment made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who said that the only way to scrutinise the Government’s activity in this area is to have debates. I remind him that that is the way that Governments are meant to be scrutinised; that is how Parliament works. I am here at the Dispatch Box to be part of the scrutiny process of the Government.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I think the Minister knows the point that I was making: having this debate once every 18 months or every two years is simply not enough, and having written questions fobbed off time and again with almost identical answers is an inefficient and inadequate way to do business.

[James Cleverly]

I understand. The hon. Gentleman knows that, since becoming the Minister for the region, I am the responding Minister. If he is critical of repetitive answers, it is because the same questions keep being asked, but I will try to address promptly some of the points that were raised, if hon. Members permit.

I am very conscious that, as we have seen today, through written correspondence and more broadly, there has been criticism of the fund, and particularly of our work in Bahrain, but our policy has been to engage with Bahrain and to encourage and support its institutional reform through targeted assistance. For example, the IAF has enabled British expertise to help develop Bahrain’s independent human rights oversight bodies. I know that Members present have been critical, but the creation of those bodies is important, as is their improvement and reform. I know that the ombudsman’s office has, again, been criticised, but it must be recognised that it has investigated more than 5,000 complaints. I invite hon. Members to consider whether those investigations would have happened had we not been involved.

Bahrain: Prisoners Under Sentence of Death

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I thank my hon. Friend; his points are very well made. One of the advantages of having more than 200 years of relationship with the Bahraini is that we can speak candidly, clearly and at the highest levels. We are more than comfortable with reiterating our opposition to the death penalty and torture, and we are happy to restate that at the highest levels within Bahraini society.

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

As the SNP spokesperson on international human rights and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on democracy and human rights in the Gulf, I congratulate the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) on securing this urgent question. The Minister and his FCO colleagues have become serial correspondents on this issue recently, as recourse to the death penalty in Bahrain has become increasingly commonplace. Since 2012, the United Kingdom has been providing Bahrain with what it calls technical assistance. That technical assistance is designed to build effective and accountable institutions, strengthen the rule of law and assist with police and judicial reform. That is clearly not happening. Given that the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims has declared that the investigation of this case, carried out by the Bahrain special investigation unit, was seriously flawed, failed to meet even the minimum standards of international recognition and breached the Istanbul protocol, will the Minister now urgently review that technical assistance programme to Bahrain, and will he agree to suspend it immediately if these death sentences are carried out?

[James Cleverly]

The point I made in response to the shadow Minister is that the OSJA process is robust. The process is designed to ensure that when the United Kingdom Government provide assistance to a foreign Government, it does not in any way help to facilitate human rights abuses. It is held constantly in review and we review our relationships regularly, so obviously, by definition, our relationship with Bahrain and any future technical assistance will be assessed against the criteria that we have put out. I would say, however, that a number of the oversight bodies are only in existence because of the strength of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Government of Bahrain. Where those bodies are seeking to improve and to become more transparent and robust, we will seek to help them to do so. If we were to disengage, I do not believe that that would be conducive to improving the human rights situation in Bahrain.

Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee. We have taken these measures. He has heard what we have said on Hong Kong. He will know that Huawei is going through the review in the context of US trade sanctions. The integrated review is coming forward, which will be completed by the autumn. That is the right opportunity, in parallel with the comprehensive spending review, to make sure that we have the right strategy and the resources to back it up.

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

Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the application of the sanctions regime will be transparently even-handed and will not be blind to human rights abuses carried out by or in the name of our so-called allies and friends such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Israel or India, or indeed countries with which we are seeking to secure a post-Brexit trade deal?

[Dominic Raab]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the designations, he will see that we have answered that in the first round that we are making today.

Xinjiang: Uyghurs

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

Yes, they absolutely have to look long and hard at their supply chains, for the reasons that I have given during this session. As I said, we have raised these concerns, and the report we have seen in the last 24 hours adds fuel to our serious concerns about human rights violations in Xinjiang.

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

In common with all who have spoken this afternoon, I agree that the Chinese Government’s policy towards its minority Uyghur population is and has been a stain on that country for many years. Sadly these revelations, while shocking, are not new. As early as 2014, senior Chinese Government Ministers were openly talking about extending the draconian family planning policies specifically to curb population growth among the Uyghur population. Will the Government assure the House that as they seek post-Brexit trade deals, they will not pursue trade to the exclusion of human rights, and that that remains an unmovable precondition?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that issue. I can confirm that, as I have said previously, we want to secure growth and investment for the UK, but upholding human rights and our values is not a zero-sum choice. We believe that political freedom and the rule of law are vital underpinnings for both long-run prosperity and stability. By having a strong relationship with China, we are able to have open discussions on a range of very difficult issues, including human rights.

Persecution of Christians

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this hugely important debate. Although not too many Members are present, I know that there are many others who, if not here in person, are certainly with us in spirit. I include in that my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), whose work on reuniting refugee children informed him about much of what we will be debating this afternoon. I thank him, and so many other Members, for being such a powerful voice in speaking up for the millions of persecuted Christians around the world. Sadly, that voice is more necessary now than ever, as it seems that anti-Christian discrimination and persecution are on the rise. That was brought home to many of us who attended the launch of the 2020 Open Doors report just last month.

As we have heard, every year the charity Open Doors publishes its world watch list of the 50 worst-offending countries when it comes to the persecution of their Christian communities. The list makes particularly depressing reading. As we have also heard, the 2020 report says that, from Colombia to China, a staggering 260 million Christians face extreme or high levels of persecution. A further 50 million face persecution in 23 other countries that are named, including Mexico, Chad and the Democratic Republic of Congo. That means that more than 300 million Christian people are living in fear of practising their faith, and it appears to be getting worse.

[Patricia Gibson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to take a really committed stand against religious persecution, the UK Government could, in solidarity against that persecution, allow asylum seekers who come to the UK and whose claims have been accepted to work if they are fleeing religious persecution?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara]

Obviously I agree. We have argued in favour of that on many occasions. Perhaps it is time that, rather than just talking about Open Doors once a year, the UK practised literally opening doors to people across the country who need our help.

Five years ago, Open Doors ranked just one country, North Korea, as “extreme” in the level of its persecution of Christians. Today no fewer than 11 countries are in the “extreme” category: during those five years, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Sudan, Eritrea, Yemen, Iran, India, Syria and Pakistan have joined the list.

On the night of 10 October last year, a 14-year-old Catholic girl, Huma Younus, was abducted from her home in Karachi by three men. She was taken to the city of Dera Ghazi Khan, 600 km from her home. A few days later, her parents received official papers informing them that their daughter had converted to Islam and was now married to a much older man called Abdul Jabbar. Sadly, abduction for the purposes of forced conversion and marriage is a major issue in Pakistan. According to the Centre for Social Justice, between 2013 and 2019 at least 159 cases were officially reported, the vast majority of victims being poor Christian or Hindu girls who were abducted and forced against their will to convert and marry.

Earlier this week Huma Younus’s case was heard at the High Court in Karachi, where her parents argued that her marriage was invalid, in line with the Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929, which forbids marriage under the age of 18. They produced evidence, including her baptismal certificate issued by St. James Parish in Karachi, which showed that she was 14 years old, having been born in May 2005. Yet the judges ruled that, as per Sharia law, even if Huma was a minor, the marriage between her and her alleged abductor was valid because she had already had her first menstrual cycle. Obviously, the judges’ decision was a devastating blow to Huma’s family. In the words of her inconsolable mother,

“Once again, justice has been defeated and, once again, our state has shown itself unable to treat Christians as Pakistani citizens.”'

In a direct appeal to international Governments, her parents said:

“We appeal to the international community and to the international media, we appeal for you to raise your voices in defence of Huma. Our daughter is just 14 years old.”

So I ask the Minister on behalf of Huma and her heartbroken parents: what is the UK going to do for her and for those other Pakistani children who are being sexually exploited, forced to abandon their faith and enter marriages against their will? What are the UK Government going to do? How are they going to lobby the Pakistani authorities in those cases where religious laws and customs that are discriminatory towards minors are taking precedence over state legislation and causing a flagrant breach of human rights? This year, the UK plans to give more than £300 million in aid to Pakistan. What assessment have the Minister and the Government made of Huma’s lawyer’s statement about the Child Marriage Restraint Act that

“in Pakistan these laws are formulated and approved only to improve the image of the country in front of the international community, to ask for development funds and to freely trade Pakistani products on the European market”?

Of course, Pakistan is far from being alone in this. Open Doors and other Christian groups have identified a number of trends that are fuelling the rise in persecution against Christian communities. They include increasingly authoritarian states clamping down and using legislation to control or suppress belief, and unscrupulous Governments and regimes discovering that appealing to a sense of national religious identity and depicting Christians as aliens or outsiders can be a useful way to boost their own power and position. They also include, as we have heard, the spread of radical Islam, which has been driven out of large parts of the middle east but is now becoming more prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa.

Last year in Nigeria, more than 1,300 Christians were killed for their faith by ISWAP—Islamic State West Africa Province—or Boko Haram. In Nigeria, more people were murdered for their faith than in any other country in the world. Among them were the 10 Christian men who were beheaded and whose murders were graphically shown to the world in a video released on Christmas day, of all days. Tragically, 2020 has started where 2019 left off. On Monday of this week, the body of 18-year-old Michael Nnadi was found by a roadside. Michael was a seminarian with the Good Shepherd seminary in Kaduna and had been missing since being taken hostage, along with three brother seminarians, by Boko Haram on 8 January. Michael’s abduction and murder are the latest in a long line of atrocities committed by Boko Haram that include the murder of Father Clement Ugwu, the kidnapping of Father John Shekwolo and the continued detention of Leah Sharibu, the only one of the 109 young girls who were kidnapped in 2018 who is still being detained. She is being held because of her refusal to convert to Islam.

I am sorry to say that the activities of Boko Haram and ISWAP are spreading to the neighbouring countries of Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Niger and Mali, all of which appear on this year’s Open Doors list. Last week, Bishop Bruno Ateba from northern Cameroon told Aid to the Church in Need that in the first two weeks of 2020 there had been 13 attacks on villages in his diocese. He said:

“Just when people thought that the beast of Boko Haram had been completely decapitated, the horror has resurfaced in northern Cameroon.”

The problem is undoubtedly getting worse, and the persecutions of Christians is becoming increasingly widespread. We have all watched with horror and great sorrow the systematic attempts to erase all traces of Christianity from its middle eastern spiritual homeland. His Holiness Pope Francis has said:

“It might be hard for us to believe, but there are more martyrs in the world today than there were in the first centuries. They are persecuted because they speak the truth and proclaim Jesus Christ to this society.”

Sadly, the response of this society to those speaking that truth is all too often to imprison torture, kidnap or murder them.

Thankfully, there are many individuals, charities and NGOs who work hard in this field. I pay tribute to the wonderful work being done by Aid to the Church in Need, which each year funds more than 5,000 projects in more than 140 countries around the world, helping and supporting persecuted Christians to live out their faith while providing practical and spiritual support to millions of people. I was privileged last year to visit Lebanon and the Syrian border with Aid to the Church in Need to see that practical support in action. We met Christian families who had fled Syria, Iraq and other places in the middle east to seek refuge in Lebanon. Were it not for the day-to-day support and pastoral care provided by ACN, they would be absolutely destitute. On the feast of the Epiphany, I was honoured to be with the Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop when St John the Merciful Table provided 1,000 refugees with their only hot meal. That is something that they do every single day. It was a small but wonderful example of how Christian organisations are helping those fleeing persecution, but with the growth in the number of people in need, this cannot be left simply to the charities to provide.

As I said, more than 300 million Christians are being persecuted or are living in fear of persecution. As we have heard, there is no identikit model for what that persecution looks like. It comes from direct state suppression, as in North Korea and China. It can come in the form of discriminatory laws that favour one group ahead of another, such as those we are currently witnessing in Pakistan. Persecution can also come in the form of terrorism from Daesh, Boko Haram or ISWAP, who use extreme violence against many of the poorest people on the planet in order to pursue their ideology. It can come with or in the wake of war, as warring factions seek to divide communities along religious lines for their own gain, as we are seeing in Syria. We have to be clear that, wherever it comes from and however it manifests itself, we all, as individuals, as groups and as the Government, have to call it out. We have to be seen to be doing everything we possibly can to stop it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Wheeler]

I am sure that my hon. Friend would have shared his letter if I had written just to him. [Interruption.] Of course he would; he’s a good Christian boy. I would be delighted to approach the answer to his question in the way he describes, to help all Members of the House.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I specifically asked about the case of Huma Younus, who has been kidnapped, forced to convert to Islam and forced to marry a much older man, and whose parents are desperately seeking an international response. Will the Minister or her Government respond—if not today, at some point in the future—to this critical issue of a child who has been abducted, forced to convert and forced into marriage?

[Mrs Wheeler]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for repeating that very important point. I thought that I had mentioned that we condemn all forced marriages. If I did not say it loudly enough, I say it again now. My civil servants in the Box will see what we can do about making that a central point.