Violence against Religious Groups: Nigeria

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

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

I send our deepest condolences to everyone affected by this appalling attack. This time last week, I was in Nigeria with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Although this latest atrocity is truly shocking, I fear that it will come as no surprise to the religious leaders, civil society activists and victims we met, all of whom told us how rampant corruption, a culture of impunity, the inability of the state to provide adequate security and escalating poverty are driving that beautiful country to the edge of catastrophe.

Can the Minister tell me what practical help she has offered? In a country where we were told that everything is seen through the prism of religion, when did she last meet the special envoy specifically to discuss the escalating religious-based violence in Nigeria? Rather than cutting aid by 50%, should the UK not be investing to alleviate poverty and building interfaith, inter-community trust relationships to prevent such radicalisation in future?

[Vicky Ford]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to condemn the attack. I thank him and members of the all-party parliamentary group for their trip to Nigeria last week; I know that they worked with the high commissioner to meet lots of community and faith leaders from many parts of the country, and that their visit was truly appreciated by the people they met.

I have already mentioned some of the programmes that we do in Nigeria to try to improve stability and address long-term concerns. We also do a lot of work in the region to try to prevent greater instability, including across the Sahel and in Nigeria. That is why we have peacekeeping troops in the United Nations multidimensional integrated stabilisation mission in Mali, why we support the efforts of the Economic Community of West African States, and why we lead the international response at the Lake Chad basin.

The hon. Gentleman asks what meetings I have had recently. I am in pretty regular contact with the Foreign Minister of Nigeria; in fact, I spoke to him when we were in Côte d’Ivoire. I spoke to our high commissioner just last week.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are very clear that we need to restore the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and we need to ensure that all communities in Northern Ireland are treated with esteem.

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

We spent so much time debating the Northern Ireland protocol that this Government could not have been unaware of a single dot or comma. Were they simply unable to understand the implications of their own protocol deal, or did the Prime Minister present his oven-ready Brexit deal knowing that he would end up deliberately breaking international law? Is this Government stupidity or Government duplicity?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We negotiated the Northern Ireland protocol in good faith, and I have been negotiating with Maroš Šefčovič in good faith, but we have seen real consequences for the people of Northern Ireland that need to be addressed.

Shireen Abu Aqla

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Brendan O’Hara.

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

We on the SNP Benches unequivocally condemn the murder of Shireen Abu Aqla, one of the Arab world’s most respected journalists, who was shot dead by the Israeli army despite wearing full press coverings, body armour and a helmet. Shireen’s death takes to 50 the number of journalists who have been killed by the Israeli occupation forces over the past 20 years—deaths for which no one has ever been held to account. It is therefore absolutely essential that, along with the EU, the United States and the UN, all democracies unreservedly condemn the killing, and all who support a full, impartial and transparent investigation must be supported.

Does the Minister agree that the investigation should be carried out by the International Criminal Court, so that the person responsible for this awful crime can be found, tried and, if convicted, given an appropriate sentence? What sanction against Israel does she think would be appropriate in those circumstances? Finally, will she also unreservedly condemn the disgraceful actions of the Israeli police when on Friday they attacked Shireen’s cortege with batons and stun grenades, denying her even in death any sort of dignity or respect?

[Vicky Ford]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the killing has been condemned across the world, and indeed by us in the UK. As I have said, we have called for an immediate, thorough, transparent, fair and impartial investigation. It is really important that that happens soon and that it is very thorough. I think that we were all completely shocked by the scenes at her funeral. We are deeply concerned about the rise in violent attacks in the area, and we continue to call for peace, as we always have done; working to deliver peace is our top priority. She was an incredibly respected journalist and the hon. Gentleman is right to point to the risk to journalists across the world. I believe that across the world 26 journalists have been killed so far this year, including six in Ukraine—it might even be more since the last update I received. We must stand for journalists and for media freedom.

Elections Bill

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, as I have at every stage of this Bill, and I am sure the Minister will agree that it is nice to be on the home stretch after so long, especially as she very bravely took over halfway through. I know today could potentially be quite a long one and we are all keen to get to Prorogation so that those of us with candidates can get out on the doorsteps campaigning in the local elections, so I will not take too long.

I spoke previously about my psephological exuberance, and I am afraid that today I will expose my psephological exasperation at some of the amendments that have come back from the Lords. I am, as we would expect from the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House of Lords, a keen advocate of the upper Chamber and the excellent work it can do in refining legislation, as has been the case here. As such, I do not intend to speak to the amendments the Government are accepting; I think they speak for themselves, but I do welcome the refinements they present. Instead I shall touch briefly on Lords amendments 22 and 23 in the name of Lord Judge and then on amendment 86 in the name of Lord Willetts.

On amendments 22 and 23, clauses 14 and 15 will allow the Government, with the approval of Parliament, to clearly articulate the principles and priorities for the commission to be guided by when discharging its duties, especially where primary legislation is not explicit and where the commission enjoys a great degree of latitude in priorities and approach. Fundamentally, we should have confidence that there is a clear framework underpinning the role and duties of the commission in its work. At present, just three of the sitting commissioners have any electoral history of their own and, however august their CVs may be— and I absolutely accept that they are—they are not experts in elections or electoral law, nor do they have any lived, practical experience that informs their decision making.

Setting appropriate thematic guidance is wholly appropriate and clauses 14 and 15 give the power to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission to approve that guidance. Despite some of the alarmist talk about this part of the Bill from those on the Opposition Benches, this does not take away from the independence of the commission, and I think if anyone were to be truly honest they would agree that the commission has not steered entirely clear of controversy or perceived bias in its past. We know at least of one recent case where its decision was overturned, in relation to the referendum; in fact, a former head of the commission was actively campaigning in that referendum. I want a robust commission, not one that plays fast and loose with the rules and gives itself carte blanche to do as it pleases. That said, I will be supporting Government amendments (a) to (k), which refine the Government’s approach.

Amendment 86 seems, I am afraid, to be another attempt to override the voter ID provisions of the Bill. The specified list of IDs, including the freely available Government ID to be introduced, provides a wide-ranging yet robust range of options to validate the right to vote. We have heard some disgraceful attempts to paint voter ID as a form of voter suppression against certain minority groups. I was told by a member of the Labour party in the Bill Committee that I, as an LGBT Member, would not be able to vote because of this new provision; it was absolutely disgusting. This is dog-whistle politics at its worst and Opposition Members should be ashamed.

In fact, just yesterday the Supreme Court ruled on this matter and I will read from the judgment:

“I consider that if persons have confidence in the electoral system by the elimination or reduction in voter fraud then they might be encouraged to vote by virtue of their increased confidence in the electoral process.”

In other words, the Supreme Court thinks this makes it more likely that people will vote.

According to work conducted by the Electoral Commission, two thirds of voters support voter ID, just 4% of people surveyed did not have any of the qualifying ID in the Bill, and just 17% of those people said they would not take up the freely available ID. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) is chuntering from a sedentary position; if people choose to absent themselves, that is their choice.

Opposing or undermining this measure is at very best to turn a blind eye to the problem. I asked in Committee and on Third Reading and will ask again: what is an acceptable level of fraud? How many votes is it okay to steal before we feel we have to act in legislation? [Interruption.] Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; I am sorry, but I have heard this argument several times and it is spurious. We should want to be the envy of the world by having the most robust electoral system, and that can be achieved by doing what Northern Ireland voters have been doing for a very long time, and what most voters who turn up to the polling station with their polling card think they already have to do: prove who they are and that they are eligible to vote where they are trying to.

3.15 pm

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

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore accept that turning up with a polling card proves that we are who we say we are, and if that is the case why does he reject the long list from the Lords? If he accepts that a polling card says who we are, why not the list from the Lords?

[Chris Clarkson]

No, the hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I said. I said people turn up with a polling card; I did not say that that is an appropriate form of ID. People already assume they have—[Interruption.] No, I did not; I encourage the hon. Gentleman to read Hansard because he clearly was not listening. [Interruption.] No, he was not. An appropriate form of ID is something that will definitively prove who we are.

I can give a perfect example of this. I share an office with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes). His surname is the same as my stepfather’s. I could go and vote on behalf of my stepfather by taking something that demonstrates that I am him, because I can just take it off his desk. That is how unrobust this approach is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Clarkson]

As I have said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We do not know how many times this is going on. I ask the hon. Gentleman: how many votes is it okay to steal in Scotland? Is there a different metric—is there a Barnett consequential for electoral fraud? It is ludicrous that this is being opposed, and we have to ask what the motive is from the Opposition Benches; I am pretty sure most sensible people can infer why they oppose it.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I shall seek to give a calm and reasoned response to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), and I rise to speak in favour of Lords amendments 22 and 23, which, as we have heard, seek to preserve the integrity and independence of the Electoral Commission, as well as Lords amendment 86, which says that, if we have to go down the road of providing ID at polling stations, what is deemed as an acceptable form of ID should be greatly extended to allow as many people as possible to participate in our democracy.

Having sat through hour after hour of the Bill Committee searching for evidence that any form of ID was actually necessary, nothing—particularly, I have to say, after the hon. Gentleman’s contribution—will shake me from the belief that there is no need for this. From day one this has been, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said, a solution in desperate search of a problem. From the very first day of our evidence sessions, many months ago, I was convinced—I remain convinced—that the desire to produce photographic ID at polling stations is nothing less than a cynical ploy to disenfranchise a sizeable section of the electorate, and to give the Conservative party an advantage on polling day.

I thank the Lords for their valiant efforts to rescue something from this utterly appalling Bill. I know that they did a great deal of work on it and have tried to remove or soften some of its more unpleasant and fundamentally undemocratic aspects, but as I said in Committee, on Second Reading and on Report, the Elections Bill is rotten to its core. The Lords could have gone through the Bill for a month of Sundays and it would still be rotten to its core.

I believe that, in a democracy, the best place for the Bill would be in a chamber of democratic horrors in a political museum, where it would be brought out—along with the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—to be shown to aspiring politicians with a warning that said, “Look what we nearly did to our democracy.”

When we sent the Bill to the Lords, it was an affront to democracy, and however it was amended, there was not a snowball’s chance in hell that it would return and be anything but an affront to democracy. However, in the spirit that something—anything—is better than nothing, the SNP will support the amendments made in the Lords.

One of the most egregious ideas contained in the Bill was always the plan to politicise the hitherto independent Electoral Commission by placing it under the direction of the Government and having Ministers set its policy direction and strategy. The independence of the Electoral Commission is fundamental to maintaining public confidence and trust in our electoral system. In a healthy democracy, the idea of the independent referee having its strategic direction dictated by the sitting Government beggars belief. Giving this or any future Government the power to direct the work of the commission is fraught with danger, and if the public, campaign groups, political parties and individuals start to believe that the decisions of the commission are politically motivated, or that they are tainted by party political bias, the commission’s trusted position of impartial arbiter will disintegrate in short order.

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech with many good points. Does he share my surprise that those on the Government Benches are not prepared to take into account the fact that the Lords tabled a cross-party amendment to deal with the concern that he and I share about undermining the Electoral Commission? That concern is obviously shared in the other place. Perhaps the Government could take that into account before dismissing that amendment.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I share the hon. Lady’s concerns. Those great concerns are felt not just on these Benches, but in the other place, as well as beyond Parliament. Among non-government organisations, individuals, trade unions and political parties, there is a genuine fear that our democracy is being undermined.

On our first day of taking evidence in Committee, Professor David Howarth, who served on the commission between 2008 and 2018, said of the idea:

“This would have been unthinkable in my time… I do not think anyone would have ever imagined this was a good idea. It is an open goal for the opponents of western democracy. If you are President Xi, you might think this is the kind of thing you want—all the institutions of the state lined up behind the governing party—but not in this country. It is completely unthinkable.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 39, Q51.]

He is absolutely right. It should be unthinkable, and even at this late stage, I urge Government Members to stand up for democracy, defend the independence of the Electoral Commission and join us in supporting Lords Amendments 22 and 23.

I turn to Lords amendment 86, which would greatly expand the number of forms of identification that would be acceptable for receiving a ballot paper. I have made the SNP position on the principle of voter ID quite clear. That position was confirmed in the Bill Committee’s earliest evidence session, when witness after witness made it clear that personation was not a problem. Even the Government’s star witness was forced to admit that postal vote fraud was a far, far greater problem that had to be tackled, but conveniently, it is not tackled in this Bill. Yet here we are creating solutions for a problem that no one really believes exists, and the Government are rejecting reasonable proposals from the Lords. I regret that the Lords have conceded on the principle of ID cards, but simply extending the acceptable forms of ID would have been a far greater and more reasonable compromise.

[Paul Holmes]

I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He keeps saying that there is no evidence of voter fraud when it comes to voter identification, so I will very calmly ask him again. If I go to a polling station with somebody else’s voting card and vote on their behalf—that is personation—and that person turns up afterwards to vote for themselves, it is very unlikely to be proven that that is what has happened. The lack of ability to prosecute on that basis is exactly why we need voter identification.

[Brendan O’Hara]

First, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that he is breaking the law, and he will, if caught, be punished. Secondly, there is no evidence whatever that that is a widespread practice, but there is great evidence that there are problems with postal voting fraud. The Bill does absolutely nothing to address them. It looks in the wrong place because it is more convenient to those on the Government Benches to look for a problem rather than address a problem, as they, and even their star witnesses, have identified.

I cannot fathom why the Government would object to people to bringing along a birth certificate, a marriage certificate, a credit card, a bank statement that is less than three months old, a national insurance card, a council tax demand letter or a mortgage statement. I just cannot understand.

[Christine Jardine]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I will just finish this point. Would the Government really have us believe that there would be an explosion of forged birth certificates being secretly traded outside polling stations; that a thriving black market in dodgy council tax demand letters would emerge, fuelled by desperate party activists; or that eBay would be awash with folk flogging their national insurance card to the highest bidder in a key marginal. It is utter nonsense! They know it is nonsense, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

[Christine Jardine]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about birth certificates, like many other married women in this country, my professional name is different from my married name, but it has always been accepted by the Passport Office, the bank and every other legal authority I know that my marriage certificate, which has both names on it, is proof that I am the same person. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept it as identification when voting.

[Brendan O’Hara]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Sadly, as with so much of the Bill, there is no common sense—indeed, no principle is involved. It is grubby attempt after grubby attempt to game the system in order to secure short-term electoral benefit for the Conservative party. If the price to be paid is a lessoning of participation in elections, I am afraid that is the choice made by Conservative Members.

From the outset we have opposed the Bill as being fundamentally undemocratic. Rather than being improved by its progress through this House, it has become even more undemocratic. I am delighted that the Scottish Parliament has refused to give it legislative consent. I thank the Lords for their attempts to improve the Bill and, in recognition of their efforts, we will support their amendments, but as the old adage says, there are some things in life that you just cannot polish, and this Bill is most certainly one of them.

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

rose—

Rape as a Weapon of War in Ukraine

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

As the hon. Member knows, because she came to meet me, a huge amount of work goes on with our conflict prevention strategy not only in Ukraine but around the world. Right now, we are focusing on supporting the people of Ukraine. It is incredibly important that Putin stops this war and stops the violence. Our priority at the moment is to help to reduce the impact of that conflict on those people. The hon. Member is right to say that we work across the world to try to reduce conflict. Indeed, I was in Nigeria recently, which is one of the most challenging countries from the point of view of attacks on civilians, even though it is not what we would describe as a warzone. The work we are doing there to try to reduce conflict is absolutely part of our approach, and it has to be done in the right way for a particular place.

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

Earlier this week I met Amnesty International, which is working on the ground in Ukraine and has growing concerns about the use of sexual violence against women and girls. Will the Minister assure the House that when the evidence is collected and people are called to account, this hideous and despicable crime is not simply lumped together with other crimes but is seen as a stand-alone offence and will be punished as such to the full extent of the law? That would send a clear signal that it is not acceptable and that the perpetrators will be hunted down, called to account and punished for what they have done.

[Vicky Ford]

May I use this opportunity to thank Amnesty International, including the branch in my constituency of Chelmsford, which does a fantastic amount of work to raise concerns about human rights issues right across the world? The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that sexual violence in war is completely unacceptable. That is why, as I have said, the Foreign Secretary has made it a priority to work internationally on a new agreement or convention in order to strengthen the global response, to increase prevention of conflict-related sexual violence, to strengthen the state’s commitment to survivors and, most importantly, to improve our mechanisms to hold these dreadful perpetrators to account.

Executions in Saudi Arabia

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

I have been clear about our opposition to the death penalty. We have raised a number of cases with the Saudi authorities, and I will happily follow up on that particular case in writing.

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

The Greek writer Aesop once said that a man is known by the company he keeps. That applies equally to states. This week, while the Prime Minister’s former friends in Moscow were committing atrocities in Ukraine, his existing friends in Riyadh were executing 81 people. It is obvious that the oft-repeated words of condemnation mean nothing. Is it not time that this country, rather than cosying up with such regimes, completely resets its relationship with regimes that do not share our values and that feel, because of their wealth, that they can continue to trample over basic human rights with impunity?

[Amanda Milling]

What I would say, actually, is that given our relationship with Saudi Arabia, we are able to have frank conversations about human rights.

Sanctions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

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

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

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

[Elizabeth Truss]

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

Relationship with Russia and China

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Brendan O'Hara]

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

[Tom Tugendhat]

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

[Brendan O'Hara]

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

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Brendan O'Hara]

No, I will not give way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

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

[Brendan O'Hara]

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

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

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

Uyghur Tribunal Judgment

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Elections Bill

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Miller]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wera Hobhouse]

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

[Brendan O'Hara]

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

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

[Brendan O'Hara]

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

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

[Cat Smith]

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

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

[Brendan O'Hara]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

[Brendan O’Hara]

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

[Mr Holden]

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

[Brendan O’Hara]

I was asking you.

[Mr Holden]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

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

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

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

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