Maldives: Political Situation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Sir Hugo Swire]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman— I suspect that I know which angle he is coming from.

[Jim Shannon]

I think the right hon. Gentleman knows exactly which angle I am coming from. I congratulate him on securing the debate. He will be aware of the religious persecution that is clearly taking place in the Maldives. Some of my constituents went there on holiday. One was imprisoned and sent back home, because he took his Bible with him and read it. It is against the law for someone to read a Bible, be a Christian and practise their religion in the Maldives. Is that not another example of the human rights abuses carried out in the Maldives, in this case, against those of a religious and Christian belief?

[Sir Hugo Swire]

This is the great dilemma of the Maldives. It is, on the one hand, an Islamic country, but on the other it is host to many hundreds of thousands of people from around the world, on whom it depends and who should be free to practise their own religion, even if they are on holiday.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) for securing this debate. During his time as one of my predecessors in the office I currently hold, he was tireless in his efforts to improve the political and human rights situation for all the people of the Maldives. I pay great tribute to him for his continued commitment to this cause and share his disappointment and alarm at the recent deterioration in the political outlook in the Maldives. While I cannot promise that I will deliver on every last bit of the shopping list in his speech, he can rest assured that it provides not just food for thought, but an important pointer for the future, and we will look at all his proposals. I am also very grateful for the interest and shorter contributions of other Members, and I shall try to respond to a range of the points made during this debate.

Let me start by setting out the current situation in the Maldives, which is deeply concerning, and this Government’s response, before touching on the implications for visitors and the wider international context. For several years, particularly since 2015, President Yameen has been cracking down on the rights of political opponents, judicial institutions and the independent media, all in a bid to strengthen his own grip on power, despite growing popular discontent at his rule. Over the past year, the leaders of all Maldivian opposition parties have spent time either in jail or in exile. In July, President Yameen used the military to enforce a shutdown of Parliament to prevent the opposition from voting to impeach the Speaker, a close confidante of his. Parliament has in essence been ineffective in the Maldives since that time.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon pointed out, on 1 February this year the Supreme Court of the Maldives ruled that Parliament should release nine prominent opposition leaders from prison and reinstate the 12 MPs who had been stripped of their seats when they sought to leave the President’s party for the opposition. They included former President Nasheed, who is well known to several UK political figures, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). He currently resides here in the UK in exile. His time in office was, to be honest, turbulent, but he did represent an era of significant steps forward towards a more open and democratic Maldives—a secular Maldives, which would have taken religious freedom seriously in the way the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) would wish all to experience.

However, just four days later, on 5 February, President Yameen declared a state of emergency in response to the Supreme Court decision. The effect of this is to suspend, among other things, the rights to privacy, freedom of assembly and silence following arrest, as well as protections from unlawful arrest. These measures were extended on 20 February for a further 30 days. In the weeks since the emergency was declared, the Maldivian Parliament has been closed down, two of five Supreme Court judges, including the chief justice, have been arrested, more opposition leaders and their families have been jailed and journalists and protestors have been pepper-sprayed and arrested.

Wider human rights concerns persist, including the Government’s highly regrettable and stated intention to resume executions under the death penalty. Freedom of speech is being persistently curtailed, and human rights defenders and independent journalists are being intimidated. A new anti-defamation Act is being used to attack independent media outlets, some of which have had temporarily to close out of fear for the safety of their employees.

This situation is entirely unacceptable. As for the state of emergency, let us make no bones about it: President Yameen has suspended the basic rights of his citizens because the Supreme Court ruled against him. It is an affront to any sense of democratic principles and the rule of law and a blatant power grab. It is entirely right that these actions have been condemned internationally. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has described the situation as an “all-out assault” on democracy, and the International Commission of Jurists has said that the Maldivian authorities

“have not even come close to meeting the high threshold set by international law for the derogation of rights in times of genuine emergency”.

Those of us who follow media reporting will have seen speculation about how various regional powers might respond, particularly given that the Maldives is located close to the important shipping lanes that run from Malacca to Hormuz. The UK’s position on this is clear: the current situation in the Maldives is a political crisis that requires a political and diplomatic solution.

To address one of the points raised by my right hon. Friend, the Government are aware of reports about a Maldives-flagged vessel apparently engaging in ship-to-ship transfers with a DPRK vessel, in defiance of the UN Security Council sanction. We are also aware of the Maldives Government’s response that the ship does not belong to the Maldives. I think that it is only fair and right that we conduct further inquiries about this potentially serious case before coming to any judgment. Broadly speaking, I have to say that our response to the deteriorating situation over the past three years has been robust, as it will continue to be.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement on 5 February, calling for President Yameen to end the state of emergency peacefully, restore suspended rights and permit the full, free and proper functioning of Parliament. I will meet the Maldivian ambassador later this week to seek his explanation of what his Government are doing in these areas. Our ambassador, James Dauris, who is based at our embassy in Colombo in Sri Lanka, flew to Malé on 8 February to raise our concerns directly with the Maldives Government and to meet opposition politicians and journalists.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for all that he does, which is deeply appreciated by everyone in the House—I mean that sincerely, because we all appreciate the influence he has around the world. When he meets the Maldivian ambassador, will he express the concerns that I and many other Members have, as was shown in last Thursday’s debate in Westminster Hall, about the persecution of Christians, who do not have an opportunity to worship their God in the way they want?

Freedom of Religion or Belief

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered freedom of religion or belief.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. This debate is specifically about how the UK Government can work to advance the right of freedom of religion or belief at the 37th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. It is a pleasure to speak on these issues. I thank all the hon. and right hon. Members who have taken the time to come on a Thursday afternoon. There are lots of reasons to say, “No, I cannot be here.” I was speaking at the Christian Solidarity Worldwide event on Wednesday, and I reminded people that there would be snow on Thursday. I said, “Maybe the snow will keep you here.” I said that graciously—I do not want to keep Members for anything but the right reason—but there were Members who had to go home early and Members who were unable to get home and so have come. We are pleased that everyone has made the time to be here. I thank you, Ms Buck, for chairing this debate, and we look forward to significant and helpful contributions from all Members.

I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which speaks on behalf of those with Christian belief, those with other beliefs and those with no belief. I am also the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Pakistani minorities. I want to put those two things on record before we start the debate.

I thank Members for participating in this important debate and for continuing to speak out. Every Member here has spoken out on behalf of those who are persecuted for their religion or belief. I also put on record my thanks, in anticipation, to the Minister. We know how much commitment he has for these issues. He is a Minister who will respond to our requests to him in the way that every Member believes in their hearts that he would. It is pleasing to see the shadow Minister in his place. We know he has the heart for this issue, and we look forward to his significant contribution. I look forward to hearing the comments of other Members on how the Government will raise the issue in the UN Human Rights Council session, which kicked off on Monday. We are having this debate today because we want to send our comments to that session. Hopefully the participation we have in Westminster Hall today will go to ministerial level, governmental level and then to the UN.

As most Members in the Chamber will know, the UN Human Rights Council is responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights. At each session of the UNHRC, member states come together to discuss human rights violations, give them international attention and make recommendations. We will use the debate to highlight issues that we hope can then feed into the UN human rights commission, which is also meeting. That is why I am very thankful for the opportunity to have this debate, so that Members can raise freedom of religious or belief issues with the Government, and so that the issues can be brought to the UN and given the international attention they desperately deserve.

As Members will know, I have campaigned for many years to raise freedom of religion or belief issues in my role as chair of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief. I hope to discuss some of those issues in the hope that it will help the Minister and his team to advance the right to FORB at the UN Human Rights Council. As the debate unfolds and as people participate and make contributions, we will form a joint opinion of what we want among all the parties here, the shadow Minister and the Minister, and that will go up into the heart of Government.

I want to speak about five issues; other Members will speak about others. They are: the mass violence of armed Fulani Muslim herders in their conflict with Christian farmers in Nigeria; the criminalisation of blasphemy and religious conversion in Nepal; the continued state-sponsored persecution of the Baha’is in Iran; forced conversion in Pakistan; and abuses of freedom of religion by the Eritrean state and the ongoing imprisonment of Patriarch Abune Antonios—given my Ulster Scots accent, I hope that sounded as it should.

Sessions of the UNHRC represent an excellent opportunity to increase international attention on an issue, so it would be remiss of me not to use this debate to shine a light on the growing violence of armed Muslim Fulani herders in their conflict with Christian farmers in Nigeria. Since 2001, climate change, over- population and extremist religious interpretations have combined to cause mass violence between those two groups in Nigeria’s middle belt. Despite rarely being discussed in the media, the global terrorism index estimates that up to 60,000 people have been killed in the conflict since it began 17 years ago. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced, and thousands of villages, churches, mosques, livestock and businesses have been destroyed, at great cost to local and state economies.

There is no doubt that violence has been committed by actors on both sides of the conflict, but the Fulani herdsmen militia, armed with sophisticated weaponry including AK-47s, is thought to have murdered more men, women and children in 2015 and 2016 than Boko Haram. We all know how cruel, brutal and violent Boko Haram is. In 2014, it was recognised by the global terrorism index as the fourth deadliest terrorist group in the world. The scale of the violence is unprecedented. At the federal and state level, the Nigerian Government have long failed to respond adequately.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I declare that I, too, am a member of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief. I am most concerned about what is happening in Nigeria because I do not think we know how many people in the country have been displaced by the violence. It is largely unsung in the press, but having looked at it, I would estimate that at least 50,000 or 60,000 people are displaced for religious reasons within Nigeria.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his membership of the all-party group. He is there, as we all are, for the same purpose: to try to make lives better and to fight—not physically, but verbally and emotionally—for those across the world who are persecuted.

The Nigerian Government have developed neither early-warning systems nor rapid response mechanisms to violence, and the federal police are rarely deployed. That worries me. Actors on the ground who spoke with the US Commission on International Religious Freedom universally reported that when the police are deployed, they stick to main roads and do not venture into more rural areas where the violence occurs. If they do not go where the violence is and try to stop it, it does not work. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the problem. As Nigeria is a member of the UNHRC, I hope that the Minister and his team will urge the Nigerian Government to do more to defend their citizens. I hope the Minister will offer support to help them do just that.

I will now discuss the situation with freedom of religion or belief in Nepal, which is also a member of the UNHRC. As the Minister knows, article 26(3) of the Nepalese constitution prohibits

“any act or conduct that may jeopardise other’s religion”

or

“convert another person from one religion to another”.

On 8 August 2017, the Nepalese Parliament passed a criminal code Bill that strengthens those constitutional restrictions and outlines significant criminal penalties for offenders. In other words, it is another level of persecution, this time legal. The Bill greatly threatens the rights of religious minorities in Nepal, as the broad definition of the criminal code’s provisions means they can be applied to legitimate expressions of religion or belief. For example, the charitable activities of religious groups or speaking about one’s faith could be considered to be attempts to convert another person. The wording of the Bill is also similar to the wording of blasphemy laws in neighbouring countries, which have been widely misused to settle personal scores, to target religious minorities and to further extremist agendas. The introduction of the Bill is concerning for advocates of human rights and freedom of religion or belief.

What is even more concerning is that the Bill was signed into law on the very same day that Nepal was elected to be a member of the UN Human Rights Council. On Nepal’s appointment to the UNHRC, its permanent representative to the United Nations said:

“This election offers post-conflict Nepal an unprecedented opportunity to prove its worth as an international contributor to the cause of human rights in Nepal and around the world”.

I challenge Nepal to prove to the world that what it is saying in words will happen, because the legal position in Nepal at the moment is contrary to the UN Human Rights Council and what it says. I hope, as I am sure everybody in the room does, that Nepal intends to take this opportunity. I hope that we will challenge Nepal, and that it will change its laws on blasphemy and religious conversion. Nepal’s new role means that it is even more important that the country takes protecting the rights of religious minorities seriously.

It is also important to remember that between 2014 and 2020, the Department for International Development will spend approximately £600 million in Nepal. The UK Government thus have significant influence, through which they can encourage the Nepalese Government to promote freedom of religious belief, not in words, but with action. I ask that the UK Government use that influence, and hold bilateral meetings with Nepalese representatives at the United Nations Human Rights Council, to encourage Nepal to live up to its obligations as a member of the UNHRC.

Another area of grave concern for those who take an interest in human rights and religious freedom is the plight of the Baha’i community in Iran. We have some people in the Gallery today who are here to represent the Baha’is, and we are here to represent them as Members of Parliament and from a legal point of view. The Baha’is in Iran continue to face systematic, state-sponsored persecution. This session of the UNHRC happens to fall during the second cycle of the universal periodic review of Iran’s human rights record. As part of the review, many UNHRC countries have made recommendations to Iran on how it could improve its treatment of the Baha’i community. Those recommendations have covered detention, access to education, access to employment and non-discrimination in legislation. I am sad to say, however, that it seems that none of them has been implemented, which is frustrating.

Moreover, since the election of Dr Hassan Rouhani as President in 2013, ostensibly on a reformist agenda, more than 150 Baha’is have been arrested. As of January 2018, 77 Baha’is were imprisoned because of their beliefs, and more than 30,000 pieces of anti-Baha’i propaganda have been disseminated in the Iranian media. We are here today to speak for the Baha’is and to reassure them. They are people whom we will probably never meet, but we meet their representatives.

I understand that the UK Government are likely to co-sponsor and support a resolution on human rights in Iran at this session of the UNHRC. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to confirm that? I certainly would welcome it, and I look forward to that confirmation. The resolution, if adopted, would renew the mandate of the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, a post previously held by the late Asma Jahangir. I should like to return to the tragic and untimely passing of Mrs Jahangir later.

Given the sad absence of a report from the special rapporteur on Iran at this session, would the Government kindly consider making a statement during the interactive dialogue on Iran, referencing the dire situation of the Baha’is in that country? Of course, many serious violations of human rights require attention, but I suggest that a statement on Iran is needed to emphasise the intensification of abuses against Iran’s unrecognised Baha’i minority. If people cannot access education, either at secondary or higher level, are unable to own a business or a house, cannot access healthcare, and do not have freedom of religious belief, something needs to be done. The treatment of the Baha’is can, in many ways, be seen as a litmus test for Iran’s sincerity on wider questions of human rights progress.

Another vital issue that I would like to raise is forced conversion and marriage in Pakistan. Pakistani non-governmental organisations, such as the Movement for Solidarity and Peace, have estimated that at least 1,000 Hindu and Christian girls are kidnapped, forced to convert to Islam, and forcibly married or sold into prostitution annually in Pakistan. I cannot begin to understand what has happened to those young girls. The horror and brutality that they go through is unbelievable, and most be recognised by the Government at the UNHRC.

As the Minister will no doubt be aware, Pakistan had a universal periodic review of its human rights record in November 2017. As part of that process, Pakistan received and accepted three recommendations about tackling forced conversion and forced marriage. Pakistan accepted that something has to be done, which is a welcome development, but there are concerns that the recommendations will not be pursued. I am aware of situations in the past where recommendations have been made and no progress has followed, which is unfortunate. I do not want just a verbal confirmation that Pakistan will do something; I want to see actions, because actions are better than words.

In November 2016, the Sindh provincial assembly unanimously passed a Bill against forced religious conversions. The Bill was sent to the governor for approval, but in January 2017 he refused, citing concerns raised by religious scholars and political parties that the clauses were against the teachings of Islam. Such pressure has also impeded the establishment of a national council for minorities’ rights. In 2014, the supreme court ordered the Government of Pakistan to set up such a body to monitor cases of violence and persecution against minorities. The court also ordered the establishment of a special police force to protect minorities and their places of worship. As far as I am aware, those two bodies are yet to be established. Again, there has been verbal commitment, but no action. Let us see if we can move things on. Would the Minister be willing to speak to his Pakistani counterpart to find out about the status of the Sindh Bill and those new bodies? I am also aware of the problems of education, of access to books, and of books that tell stories that are slanted against Christians.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and I concur with everything that he is saying. Earlier this week, I met with Cecil, who was here with Christian Solidarity Worldwide. I was moved by some of the stories he told me about his own kids’ experiences at school of censorship in the things that they are taught. The important thing to put on record is that we are not asking for a leg-up; we are just asking for equality, particularly for the Christian faith. It is really disappointing that Pakistan is not adhering to that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that DFID has a role to play here? Some of these books are paid for by international aid money. It is concerning that the authorities are overlooking that.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I had the opportunity to meet the gentleman to whom he refers, and I agree that his stories were heart-rending. No one could fail to be moved by what he told us.

Finally, during this month’s UNHRC session there will be a specific interactive dialogue on the human rights situation in Eritrea. The UK can contribute to that dialogue by raising the Eritrean Government’s continued abuse of FORB. That abuse was highlighted in 2016, when the UN commission of inquiry on human rights released a report, concluding that the Eritrean Government perceive freedom of religion as a threat, and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed crimes against humanity. If we believe that—and that belief has an evidential basis—we need to do something.

In Eritrea, there are only a handful of recognised religious organisations, and people who practise unregistered religions face fines and imprisonment, often without charge or trial. Estimates of the number of religious prisoners in Eritrea vary, but it is thought that there are between 1,000 and 3,000 prisoners. Reports of the torture and inhuman treatment of those prisoners are, sadly, only too frequent. According to Christian Solidarity Worldwide, prisoners have been held in metal shipping containers, underground cells, and in the open air, in desert areas surrounded by barbed wire or thorns.

Even the recognised religions are tightly controlled by the state in Eritrea. Abune Antonios, the patriarch of the recognised Orthodox Church, was deposed and replaced roughly 10 years ago. He has been under house arrest since that time. Here we are 10 years later, having been unable to persuade the Eritrean authorities to release him. Antonios was reportedly released in 2017, appearing at a mass in July following an alleged reconciliation with the Eritrean Government. It is widely believed that his tightly managed appearance was aimed at convincing the international community that the human rights situation in Eritrea was improving and, more significantly, at convincing the Eritrean people that the division caused by the patriarch’s removal was over—paving the way for a pro-Government successor. After his reappearance, the patriarch was returned to house arrest. He has not been seen since.

Will the Minister urge the Eritrean Government to release Patriarch Antonios and the prisoners of conscience detained unlawfully simply because of their beliefs? I also suggest that he encourages the Eritrean Government to extend invitations to relevant UN representatives, enabling them to conduct unhindered, thorough, independent and impartial human rights investigations?

To sum up, FORB is a fundamental human right. Tragically, countless people worldwide are suffering because of its denial. In Nigeria, armed violence by Fulani herders has taken the lives of countless innocent people. In Nepal, the Government’s laws threaten the freedom of religious minorities. In Iran, the Baha’i community are oppressed by the state at every point in their lives. In Eritrea, holy men and peaceful believers wind up unlawfully imprisoned. In Pakistan, thousands of young girls are taken from their homes and married off to men against their will. Those are just a few examples of FORB violations across the world.

I believe it is our duty as parliamentarians to speak out for those who have no voice, those who are suffering and neglected and those who want to live their lives in peace—those who just want to worship their God in the way that they want. The 37th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council offers an excellent opportunity to help those vulnerable people, and I ask that the Government raise these issues at this month’s session. During the dialogue with the special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, I ask that the Government repeat their stated commitment to FORB. I know the Minister will do that, but will he give us the assurance that it will go to the next stage, to protect the lives of persecuted religious minorities?

Will the Minister also share the steps that he has taken to advance FORB with his counterparts at the UNHRC, and encourage them to take such measures as well? That would be helpful for the debate, and to reassure those in Westminster Hall, in the audience and those watching outside.

Before I finish—this is one of those “finally and penultimately” moments, but I am getting there—I hope hon. Members will not mind if I say a few words about the late Asma Jahangir, the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran. Her name is familiar to many human rights activists and will be familiar to many in this room. She was a lawyer and campaigner, who co-founded and chaired the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. She suffered imprisonment and house arrest for her support for democracy and human rights, but her resilience and capabilities saw her become the first woman to serve on Pakistan’s Supreme Court Bar Association. She was a strong defender of human rights in Pakistan and spoke out against violence against women, a position that exposed her to serious threats. At the international level, she was called to serve the United Nations human rights machinery in three roles, first as the UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, then as special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and finally as special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, a post she held until her death last month on 11 February, aged only 66. Speaking as someone who is close to 66, that is a young age—I am not that close, but I am going that way.

Pakistan has lost one of its most courageous daughters, the United Nations has lost one of its most effective human rights defenders and many people of faith and campaigners for religious freedom and for women’s rights have lost a friend. She will be mourned in prayers by many communities. I hope that in our debate today in this House we are paying some tribute to Asma Jahangir’s work and her contribution to human rights.

In conclusion, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to bring this subject forward for debate and I thank all hon. Members for coming to participate. I look forward very much to the responses from the shadow Minister and the Minister. Today, in this House, we can be the voice for the voiceless across the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

Thank you for calling me to speak again, Sir David.

First of all, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have made the effort to come along today. Many others wanted to be here but, because of the weather conditions, they had to get home. Some are here because of the weather conditions—they could not get away. [Laughter.] No, that is not fair. They are here because they are interested, which is the main thing.

We have had some magnificent contributions to the debate. I will not give a summary of them, Sir David, because I would not have the time and you would not let me. However, I will just say that there were significant contributions from the hon. Members for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day).

I thank the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Leeds North East—for summing up so well. It is very hard to follow that act, but I thank him because he is a gentleman with passion.

I say to the Minister that we are very privileged in the all-party group on freedom of religion or belief. Some staff members are here today and the all-party group does so well because of the workers here in Parliament, and because of what they do for the group and stakeholders. Our communication with the Minister has been substantial and it is immensely appreciated by both us and our stakeholders. We recognise in the Minister a man—can I say this?—who has a passion for and interest in this issue. I am minded of a biblical story. I will not go into too much detail, Sir David, but I will just say to the Minister that we are here to “strengthen your arms” and hold them up, if I can use that analogy. Those who know the story—everyone here will—know that it is a very important one.

I will just say thanks again to everyone for contributing to the debate, and finish with a quick quotation from Scripture. It is from James 3:17-18:

“But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure;

then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit,

impartial and sincere.

Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.”

I will just say that everyone here today has made the voice of the voiceless heard in this House, and how well they have all done.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered freedom of religion or belief.

Suspicious Deaths Abroad

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I think it is fair to say that when we are elected to this place, we have our own ideas and ambitions about what we want to campaign on. So often, however, we are guided by the real-life experiences of our constituents, and that is what brings me here today for a debate on deaths abroad in suspicious circumstances, particularly in relation to two of my constituents—Julie Pearson and Kirsty Maxwell—and their families. I am honoured and privileged to get a chance today to tell their stories. Some of the details are very harrowing and distressing.

Julie Pearson and Kirsty Maxwell were two young, beautiful and vivacious young women taken from their families when they still had their whole lives ahead of them: two bereaved families; two innocent women killed in suspicious and unexplained circumstances abroad, both at the hands of, we believe, violent men. In both cases, the alleged perpetrators of the crimes are walking free, with very little having happened in terms of investigations into their deaths.

I want to put on record the admiration and respect that I have for staff who work in the foreign service for the very difficult job that they have to do, often in the most challenging and dangerous circumstances.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I sought permission from the hon. Lady to intervene because she is bringing forward an issue that has touched my constituency as well—in May last year, before the election. I commend her for doing so. I want to put on record my thanks to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for working hard over the weekend to enable the young boy’s body to come home at a very difficult time for the mum and dad, who were in Northern Ireland when he was in Spain. Those of us who have been through this with our constituents know just how heartbreaking it is. When we have staff who work hard and do the business, as our Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff do, we have to put that on record and say thank you.

[Hannah Bardell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As someone who worked in a foreign consulate—for the American State Department in its consulate in Edinburgh—I know first-hand how difficult the job of consular staff is. I have sat in on calls with senior officers when they had to break the news of the death of a loved one. However, it is my belief, having spent a lot of time with both Kirsty’s and Julie’s families, that much, much more can be done by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to resource and support its staff to help families such as Julie’s and Kirsty’s when their loved ones die abroad in suspicious circumstances.

Julie was 38. She was learning Hebrew to get citizenship in Israel because her dad was Jewish. She went to Israel to live and work and immerse herself in the local culture. Her aunt Deborah, who is my constituent, talked of how Julie loved the heat, loved to sing karaoke, and was really fun-loving. On 26 November 2015, Julie was badly beaten by her ex-boyfriend. The police were called and attended, but she was never offered medical treatment or admitted to hospital. The following day, 27 November, Julie was found dead in her hostel room in Eilat, Israel.

Following Julie’s death, and largely because of erroneous and inaccurate claims made by the authorities in Israel, her family took the hugely brave step of releasing photographs of Julie’s badly beaten and bruised body. Those images are deeply distressing, but the family felt they had no choice, because the autopsy report, which the family believe is deeply flawed, claimed that Julie had died of natural causes. The bruising and damage to Julie’s beautiful face, in my view, tells a very different story.

Foreign Affairs Committee

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind words. I have been clear since the time that I was elected to chair the Committee that I answer to the whole House, not just the Committee. I therefore feel that it is my responsibility and not a choice—it is simply a duty—to respond to the House and to be available to respond on anything that we have covered.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: Britain’s history has not been good. We must not forget the air policing, as it was then called. The then Colonial Secretary, one Winston Churchill, was the first person to use chemical weapons against the Kurds. Indeed, it was the RAF that dropped them. One reason that the RAF still exists is that it cut the cost of colonial policing by reducing the number of battalions required. I am afraid that that is true—we do not always have a glorious history.

The truth is that our role today is as a peacemaker and as an engaged friend of the whole region. In that, we should recognise that the Kurdish people have the right to self-determination, and we do recognise that, but we should encourage them to stay as part of the Republic of Iraq in the areas where they are within Iraq. Many witnesses we spoke to said that, although the referendum had called for independence, they were looking for greater autonomy within the Republic of Iraq, so there is more tension within the Kurdish position than appears immediately obvious. It is, of course, a tragedy that Syria remains governed by such a barbarous dictator and it is a great shame that he is being supported by so many around the world. The fact that he is now supporting Kurds to take on another NATO ally does not make us any happier.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the Chair of the Committee and its members for their comprehensive report. On page 5, paragraph 3, it states:

“The evidence given to us was clear: future conflicts were probable, and Kurdish groups would likely be involved.”

Political events in Kurdistan-controlled areas and Turkey’s interactions have clearly cast a spell over the whole area. Did the Committee consider that Kurdish regional autonomy may be obstructed by Turkey, which is very obvious? However, is it possible that Iraq and Syria may consider it an option? Is it too late to give the Kurdish people the hope, vision and goal that they seek and deserve? Is it possible to move Kurdish regional autonomy from being aspirational to being practical?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Part of the evidence that we received was that Kurdish regional autonomy has been a matter of great debate even within the Kurdistan region itself, and it is not absolutely clear that full independence is sought. There has been an enormous amount of debate about that and indeed some evidence pointed to the fact that greater autonomy in the Republic of Iraq was indeed what most were looking for. We did not look specifically into further details of that, so I will not go much further. I merely repeat that supporting the autonomy of the people of the Kurdish region is important, but so is supporting the Iraqi Government’s right to territorial integrity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a lot of chortling going on in the Chamber, but we have had an update on the spanner situation, for which we are indebted to the Foreign Secretary.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What steps is the Department taking to provide training on freedom of religion or belief for its officials?

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; I am well aware that this issue is close to his heart. He will be aware that Lord Ahmad and I regularly liaise on the issue with our embassies and high commissions. I wrote a joint letter to those on my patch, in Asia and the Pacific, and I have received replies from Bangladesh, Burma, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. I am encouraged that the network takes the issue as seriously as the hon. Gentleman does.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

This is another Bill that has been caused by Brexit. EU co-operation has been crucial to sanctions and anti-money laundering, and we have moved quite far along the road together as friends, neighbours and colleagues. A lot of concerns about the Bill have been voiced in relation to the justification of proportionality, and whether it takes us in the right direction to give us the opportunity to correct the flaws in our own systems.

Sanctions, as other hon. Members has said, are effective when we have co-operation, particularly as an EU block. That reflects the limitations of sanctions from the UN Security Council, because there is not always agreement among its permanent members. We need to find our place. Our place is not in the EU, as it was, but it is not entirely as other states are in the world. We need to find out where we are. Tom Keatinge from the Royal United Services Institute has said that we may have greater flexibility, but we will certainly have less influence. Ministers need to be reminded of that. I see that the Foreign Secretary has scuttled off without hearing me, which is kind of him. Without the active co-operation and engagement of Ministers with the EU, we will not be able to be the most effective at imposing sanctions. We should not pour our own collective efforts over the years down the stank just because we are leaving the EU. Unilateral sanctions bring with them a recognised risk that while we might want to do the right thing there may be repercussions. Being a part of EU collective action cushions us to an extent from that risk. We do not want to be marginalised in the world. We must take care to make sure that does not happen.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point, although I have a different opinion on Brexit. Does she not agree that our ability to implement sanctions and address money laundering are essential components of our exit from Europe and that it is vital we have the same protections in place in the international market? We must look at the possibility of even enhancing them and making them even stronger.

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree that we perhaps can and should enhance what we do, but we must take care not to lose what we have so far. We must not lose that co-operation and sense of common purpose against evils in the world, which we have had as a part of the EU.

I support the points on human rights made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). Ministers did not quite recognise the point that paragraphs (e), (f), (g) and (h) in clause 1(2) are in the Bill because they were put there by a Labour Lord. She may have made that point, but I did not want to let it pass without having recognised it. The Government should not be taking credit for things they did not do and did not put in the Bill. Those paragraphs should be in the Bill. Anything that can enhance the importance of human rights in the Bill should be there.

The NGO sanctions and counter-terrorism working group, chaired by Bond and the Charity Finance Group, has asked for protection in law for humanitarian and peace-building work, as that is, to a degree, currently inhibited by the EU regulatory framework on sanctions. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) set out, aid operations in parts of the world that are extremely dangerous and under sanctions from the UN and the EU still have to have aid workers. They have to build up relationships on the ground. They may not be comfortable with them and they may be difficult, but aid would not happen without them.

Currently, there is not sufficient protection in the Bill. There is reference to general licences with a bit more focus on guidance. Clause 37(1) states that the Minister who makes the regulations must issue guidance, but clause 37(2) states only that guidance “may” include guidance about compliance enforcement and disregards. That is not concrete enough. The guidance should be more certain, so that people know the regime they are working under, know the risks involved in what they are about to do and know if there will be any comeback from the actions they take. I do not think that that is clear enough, and I would like to see improvements in this area of the Bill. More concrete assurances are required.

That concern is shared by the banks. The UK Finance briefing on the Bill says that there is a fear of misuse, but there has to be a way to get around that. It provides the example of banks avoiding any transactions whatever with Iran, due to the risk of being sanctioned by the US—its sanctions regime is far-reaching. That risk alone has a chilling effect on its transactions in that area, regardless of any actual certainty. Sanctions will have an impact on such countries for many years to come, even after sanctions have ended. Banks need to have the confidence that they can deal with a country consistently over a number of years without falling foul of sanctions that suddenly reappear. The people working in such countries need to interact with donors, banks and transport and logistics companies. They need comfort on that. They need to buy fuel. They need to buy mobile phones. They need to make payments to move about the country and to let aid flow. For example, it is not possible to move around Yemen because there are different forces imposing different visa regimes. Moving around the country may involve making payments that fall foul of sanctions.

International Disaster Relief

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) on setting the scene so well, as he always does in debates in Westminster Hall. Debates here often are used to raise issues that are important to us, which is what the hon. Gentleman has done. Other hon. Members and I are here because we share his interest and concerns.

I have been outspoken on the obligation of those who have much to those who have little. We have a duty to help and to show compassion for those in need. However, having been brought up as an Ulster Scot with some Brethren ties, let me assure hon. Members that we are called to be good stewards of our money. We need to ensure that what we send gets to where it should get to and that it helps those who we want to help. There has to be some monitoring and regulation to make sure that it happens. For that reason, although I support overseas aid, I am concerned about how it is used. It is easy to dismiss the many newspaper and media reports, but they raise some concerns about where the moneys are spent.

I am always pleased to see the Minister in his place, because we all know him to have compassion and a real deep interest in his subject matter. There will be no one in the House or outside it, I suspect, who would do anything other than support him in his work. I asked the former Secretary of State for International Development what recent estimate had made of the proportion of the Palestinian Authority’s foreign aid receipts spent on payments to convicted terrorists in Israeli prisons in the last 12 months. The response I received was excellent, and I thank the Minister for it. It stated:

“In August 2017, the International Monetary Fund estimated that external financial support to the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 2017 will total $666 million USD (approx. £500 million GBP). Many donors, including the UK and European Union, restrict their support to the PA for specific purposes and projects, and ensure that none of their aid is used for payments to convicted terrorists in Israeli prisons. No estimates have been made of the proportion of the PA’s external financial support which was spent on payments to convicted terrorists in Israeli prisons in the last 12 months.”

It continued:

“No UK aid is used for payments to Palestinian prisoners or their families. UK financial assistance to the PA is only used to help to pay the salaries of health and education public servants in the West Bank. Only named public servants from a pre-approved EU list are eligible and a robust verification system validates that funds are used for the intended purposes. The UK government strongly condemns all forms of violence including incitement to violence.”

That reply was exactly what I wanted. It sets the scene and puts to rest some of my concerns, and outlines where we are. I welcome that good, comprehensive response.

It is essential that we know where the relief is going, who has their hands on it and who the beneficiaries of the relief are. I always give examples from Northern Ireland and my own constituency because I want everybody inside and outside this House to know about Strangford. I recently hosted a fund-raising dinner for my branch of the Democratic Unionist party. We have a dinner every year and have done so for the past five years. The dinner has a dual purpose. The event is in a local church that provides a fantastic four-course meal for those who purchase tickets. It is in a lovely area and the proceeds raised from the price of a meal go to a charity in Swaziland, the Eden Mission. It does great work: it digs wells and provides schooling and health services. The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) is nodding his head. Like me, he understands that we have a close connection with what is happening.

I have hosted the dinner for the past five years and will continue to do so. I trust what the mission does and it promises to make a difference in Swaziland. I have seen the children’s choir that the mission brought to Northern Ireland. They have sung in my office and in the halls of Stormont, where the Northern Ireland Assembly functioned until a short time ago. We hope it will function again, but we must wait and see. I know that the choice I made to host my dinner in a church hall as opposed to a local restaurant that would charge roughly the same was a good decision to make. Just over £1,000 was raised for the charity. The church did the catering and we had some auctions.

My desire is to make sure that we make good decisions about how our aid is spent and who the real beneficiaries are. The project that I support sends containers out every year to Africa. The project workers tell me stories about what happens. They pack the container to within an inch of its life. Every conceivable portion of space is used. Sweets and clothes are packed into every crevice of the container. They also tell me that they have learnt the lesson of packing because they found that when they packed expensive items, such as wheelchairs and schooling aids, to the front, those would go missing during customs searches. That is a fact. It happened. It is unfortunate it happened, but it did. They have learnt to pack the expensive items in the middle of the container to make it harder to take them.

When I was told that story I wondered how much of our aid—I pose this as a question—has been siphoned off and whether we are doing all we can to protect our aid and to pack it in the middle, as it were, as my church, an Eden Church, has done in the past. This is why I asked the Secretary of State for International Development what monitoring the Department undertakes to ensure that aid granted to specific areas is used for the purposes for which it was intended; and whether it will liaise with religious missionaries in the destination country to ensure that UK aid is effectively distributed. The reply was excellent.

I do not question that the effective use of the UK aid budget is central to the Department for International Development’s work. I understand that all funding is subject to rigorous due diligence checks and that we have strict auditing and monitoring controls in place to ensure that all funding is used as it should be, and that every project is subject to an annual performance review and a project completion review to ensure that the objectives have been achieved and aid has been delivered to the intended beneficiaries. I am pleased that the Department uses multiple sources of information, including its partnerships with civil society, to be confident that UK aid reaches those intended. However, I would push for greater interaction with those on the ground who are able to distribute the aid.

I again ask the Minister whether he will outline what work is done with NGOs to see that aid reaches the mouths of the babies with bellies swollen from malnutrition, and not the custom official with a swollen belly from too much food. It may be a little harsh to say that, but it is a fact. I have seen photographs—we have all seen them—of bellies swollen because of malnutrition and a big guy across the way whose idea of a balanced meal is probably two hamburgers in each hand. He seems to indulge in food when others are starving. I feel genuinely aggrieved by that. When we see the starving children, any person with any compassion whatever would be well aware of that. Having heard at first hand the struggles that children in Africa and other areas go through to survive, and understanding that there is a limited amount that this country can afford to give, every penny must be made to count. That is why I urge the Government again to ensure that it counts on the ground and not simply on a checklist on a desk.

Should we give aid internationally, despite the pressure we face at home? Yes, we should, and I fully endorse the Minister’s and the Government’s stand. Indeed, they have cross-party support. Should we account for every penny, every blanket, every grain of rice? We must, because it is our job to be good stewards. Should we make use of on-the-ground agencies and bodies? That is wisdom and good stewardship. I thank DFID and the Minister for the leadership and stewardship that he gives to the Department. That is why we have trust in him and support him. 1 want to make sure we are doing all that is possible to get it right.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Democracy in Hong Kong

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for her contribution. She is clearly a lady with a big heart, and she presented the case very well. Well done to her. Last week in the Holocaust debate, I quoted a poem:

“First they came… and I did not speak out.”

I recognise that we are not talking about the same thing today, but there is a similarity that we should speak out about. Looking at the situation in Hong Kong and the response to date, I am uncomfortable, as other hon. Members have said that they are.

I often say that I am proud to be a Member of Parliament in the greatest seat of democracy in the world. It is an honour that I do not take lightly. While I am standing here representing my constituents, I am mindful that with great power comes great responsibility. I am sorry to say—please do not interpret my words as an attack on anyone in this place—that we are not living up to our responsibility when it comes to Hong Kong. It is good to see the Minister in his place. I believe there is no better person to respond to this debate, and I mean that with all sincerity. I look forward to his response.

We all know the background: Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1997 following the 1984 agreement between China and Britain. China agreed to govern Hong Kong on the principle of one country, two systems, and the city would be able to enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except on foreign and defence affairs, for 50 years, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) said very clearly. I am not a mathematician, but we have not reached the end of those 50 years. If a loan had been defaulted on, we would not write it off; where there is a prison sentence, we would not allow early release; yet here we appear to have backed off. As I often say, “so sad, too bad.” The abuse of human rights, the right to worship and the right to express oneself in a democratic process—we have a responsibility to these people, and we are not fulfilling it.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I take very seriously any form of persecution, and I am constantly asking the Government—as the Minister knows—to step in and speak out on behalf of these people. People who have arranged peaceful protests are being imprisoned. Three and a half years ago, I served on the armed forces parliamentary scheme run by the Royal College of Defence Studies. One of the representatives there was the chief of Hong Kong police. He told me about the number of protests, because I was interested to hear how things were going, and he illustrated to me that protests were able to go ahead. Today they are not. Today people are under the cosh. Today, they can face a jail sentence. We have to step out against that.

Avery Ng, the chairman of the League of Social Democrats, told The Guardian:

“It is ridiculous for the Chinese government to claim that the joint declaration is a historical document. You don’t sign a contract and claim that it is historical the second day after the contract was signed.”

How true that is! He continued:

“I believe the UK government has legal, moral and political responsibility to come out and say the right thing.”

I agree with those sentiments, and while I do not believe that we have humiliated ourselves—I do not say that for one second—we have not draped ourselves in honour, either.

Yes, we would appreciate a good relationship with China to enhance trade, especially in a post-Brexit Britain, but we cannot sell ourselves, our integrity or our obligations off to achieve this. Our products are top-quality. Our relationship has gradually built up. While I firmly believe that organising a boycott of Chinese products would be counterproductive and the wrong thing to do, I do not believe that we have lost the ability to speak out about our former colony, and to instigate a real and meaningful discussion regarding these cases and what they mean for the people of Hong Kong.

Last sentence, Mr Streeter. I am asking the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for more than a strongly worded email. Let us discuss this face-to-face and make the case for those who are not being allowed to speak out for themselves. I often say that we speak for those who have no voice.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that Opposition Front Benchers have five minutes each, and the Minister has 10 minutes. That should allow a few moments for Fiona Bruce to respond at the end.

Paradise Golf Resort, Morocco

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I and others present have constituents who have been defrauded. Does he agree that it is past time that our Government stepped up on behalf of the 800 investors who have been defrauded, and used all diplomatic pressure available to achieve a fair solution for those 800 people?

[Tom Brake]

I could not agree more. I gave advance notice of my remarks, so I hope that the Minister will tell us this evening what our Government are able to do to assist the British investors who have been affected by the scandal.

The developer claimed that Amendis had not supplied the water connection, but subsequently it was shown that, in fact, the developer had not paid the invoices from that water company, so the services were not supplied. The scheme was financed by the Banque Centrale Populaire, which was part-owned by the Moroccan state, who provided some guarantees but then withdrew them without the investors’ consent. A critical point is that the Moroccan Government signed an investment agreement in 2015, which stated that the development

“golf course is almost completed, and the residential component is finished”,

but that is a complete fabrication. That is why I think there is a Government connection that requires the Moroccan Government to take responsibility.

In February 2016, the project was in a derelict state. At that point, the Moroccan Government handed over the land to the development company. Given that a requirement was placed on the Moroccan Government to track the progress of the project and make sure that certain milestones were hit, I wonder why they handed over money when it was clear that there had been no activity on the project for seven years. After the developer was arrested, a Government-owned construction company was appointed to complete the project. Certain reassurances were given by the Moroccan embassy here in London that additional money—130 million dirhams—would be provided to the developer, but that money was then withdrawn.

On 26 January 2017, the developer was found guilty in a penal case and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment but was released before completing the full sentence in May 2017. Then, on 10 October 2017, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office raised the issue in a meeting with the Moroccan Ministry of Tourism. I hope that the Minister can say whether there have been any developments since then in terms of such contact. The most recent development is that a meeting will take place with the judge involved in the case on 30 January. The core team has asked if someone from the FCO can attend, and again it looks as though the Minister might be able to clarify whether that will be the case. I and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak want a formal UK Government representative there.

This scandal raises many issues about the Moroccan Government’s involvement and contractual responsibilities. Clearly, if nothing else, they have a moral responsibility, given the many references to their supporting this project, and they need to respond to that. There are indications that they are at least willing to engage in a dialogue, in that both I and the hon. Gentleman have been into the embassy and spoken to staff there, who are well apprised of the issue, but that does not mean that the matter is resolved. I am sure that the embassy would like it to be resolved, if for no other reason than to stop the very loud protest outside the embassy, which deafens the staff inside the building. There is some incentive, therefore, for them to resolve this.

I acknowledge that the Minister’s direct capacity or ability is restricted in this matter, but I hope that he can first confirm whether there is a role for the FCO in terms of providing advice about whether it is sensible to invest in certain countries—it provides advice, obviously, on whether a country is safe—and secondly whether the FCO will be sending a representative to help the core team and their advocates when they appear in front of the judge. Finally, as highlighted in a couple of interventions, we want reassurances from the Minister, whom I am sure will be well informed on the issue, that the UK Government will not let this drop but will take every opportunity they have to raise it, whether with the Moroccan Ministry of Tourism or the Moroccan Foreign Minister. I saw the Foreign Secretary here earlier. I thought he might be responding to the debate, so as to put lots of oomph behind it, but I am sure he will find out about this as well.

I welcome the opportunity I have had to raise this matter, and I hope that it will be appropriate if I leave my remaining time to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak so that he might make a contribution before the Minister responds.

Hamed bin Haydara

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) is clearly a very wise man indeed. In fact, he would perhaps be called a greybeard if he had one.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. The judgment on Hamed Bin Haydara has called for the confiscation of his goods and also direct action against the Bahá’í, motivated very clearly by a desire to repress a peaceful religious minority. I think that some of the information coming through from the oral reports from Yemeni officials would show that Iran has an influence there. Will the Minister share with the House what representations he has had on this case, apart from those this morning? What representations are the Government going to be able to make to urge the Houthi authorities to overturn this judgment? What help can he give to the prisoners in jail who need medical attention?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We have very little direct contact with the Houthis because of the complicated nature of the Yemeni conflict. However, through all available channels—public and UN pressure, the UN Human Rights Council, collective comments within the middle east through ambassadors, and other forums—we have made every conceivable representation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to do so—perhaps, after this urgent question, even more noisily and robustly than before.