India’s Foreign Contribution Law: NGOs

Debate between Derek Twigg and Stephen Timms

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I will call the Member to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of India’s foreign contribution law on NGOs.

I am very pleased to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Twigg.

This time last year, India had a devastating covid surge. By 6 May 2021, the country had recorded over 400,000 covid cases. Oxfam India, which was founded in India by the British charity Oxfam, provided urgent supplies and support. It worked with India’s health departments, district administrations and local organisations, and its staff set up oxygen plants, provided ventilators and delivered food to vulnerable communities. India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, was among those who praised the response to the pandemic by civil society organisations, and Oxfam India played a key part in that response.

Yet in January this year, the charity received some very bad news. The renewal of its Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act licence had been refused; the decision was apparently made last December. The result is that Oxfam India is no longer able to receive funds from abroad. Its annual income will fall from around €15 million to €2.1 million; at least 11 of its 15 development projects will close; and its former reach of over 1.5 million people, mainly Dalits, indigenous populations, minorities, women and girls, will be drastically cut. No explanation for this decision has been given.

Charities and non-governmental organisations in receipt of foreign funding in India must be registered under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010—the FCRA—which regulates how foreign funding can be received. Charities and NGOs now need to operate through a designated FCRA account at the State Bank of India’s main branch in Delhi. According to Christian Solidarity Worldwide, local human rights monitoring groups say the purpose of that is to supervise and monitor NGOs’ activity. The Act now gives the Government huge powers to inquire into what NGOs are doing, each time putting their work on hold until the inquiry is complete.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

I do agree with that. The situation is very worrying. I remember vividly the pride of Muslim constituents with roots in India, their home country, when I was first elected, but that has all drastically changed. There have been new laws to make things difficult specifically for Muslim citizens. Our Prime Minister’s state visit to India last month took place against a backdrop of inter-religious violence in Delhi and the demolition of Muslim-owned buildings.

The Christian charity, Open Doors, which launches its watchlist every year in Parliament, now designates India as the tenth worst country in the world in which to be a Christian. It has been sliding down other indices as well. It is ranked 150 out of 180 countries in the latest World Press Freedom index. Freedom House ranked India as only “partly free” in its Freedom in the World report this year, noting that:

The constitution guarantees civil liberties including freedom of expression and freedom of religion, but harassment of journalists…NGOs…and other government critics has increased significantly”.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s latest Democracy Index categorises India as a “flawed democracy”. Civicus, the Johannesburg-headquartered global civil society alliance, categorises Indian civil society as “repressed”, which is the second worst category in its ranking, having downgraded in 2019. Not one of those indices proves there is a problem, but the overall message that they all convey is unmistakable.

The 2020 changes to the FCRA have effectively banned NGOs from research, advocacy and campaigning. They have also created new bureaucratic and practical hurdles, a ban on NGOs transferring funds to other NGOs, other restrictions on fund distribution, a cap on administrative costs, and delays from the necessity of additional form filling. It is claimed that all of that is to strengthen transparency and accountability, but it is fairly clear that the Government are targeting charities and non-profits that question their policies. Will the Minister urge the Indian authorities to review carefully the FCRA for compliance with international human rights standards and to suspend aspects of the law that restrict charities from providing urgently needed relief?

The Centre for Promotion of Social Concerns is a prominent human rights organisation in India. It lost its licence under the FCRA in 2016. The Ministry of Home Affairs said that was on the basis of a field agency report. The group challenged the decision in the High Court and, in the Ministry’s evidence to the court, it complained that the organisation used foreign funding to pass information to United Nations special rapporteurs and to foreign embassies, that that was

“portraying India’s human rights record in negative light…to the detriment of India’s image”,

and that such acts were

“undesirable activities detrimental to national interest”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) was right to draw attention to Amnesty International being forced to put an end to its covid support. The head of Amnesty International India said at the time:

“Even if you’re working on Covid, the law makes it very difficult for you to be able to even accept foreign aid coming in without being in violation of the law”.

Greenpeace, too, has lost its licence. The Ford Foundation has been suspended. NGOs from other overseas countries are telling their own Governments how hard this is making things for them.

Oxfam—I started with this case—has been sending help to India since 1951. Oxfam India became a fully Indian organisation in 2008. Today, it is one of the country’s largest NGOs, providing food, shelter, clothing, medicine and medical equipment. It was reaching more than 1.5 million people, but has now lost its FCRA licence, so that number will be reduced drastically. Oxfam India applied to renew its licence on 1 April last year, in good time, but it appears that the application was rejected on 15 December, although the organisation has received no official communication from the Indian Government about that decision. Now, it can only raise resources within India, but its previous income was 75% made up of foreign aid. A lot of staff will lose their jobs, and crucial humanitarian and social work has ended.

In the five years after the current Indian Government first took office in 2014, more than 14,000 NGOs were barred from accessing foreign funding, seemingly mainly to hamper criticism of Government policies. Nearly 6,000 did not have their FCRA licences renewed last year. One notable organisation affected, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out in his intervention, was the Missionaries of Charity, founded by Mother Teresa. It was blocked from accessing international funding on the grounds of “adverse inputs”, but nobody knows what that means, or what the problem with Mother Teresa’s charity was thought to be. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the decision has been reversed, which at least suggests that external pressure can help to deliver renewal of an FCRA licence.

Oxfam India applied well before the deadline. No reasons for the refusal were given, simply a statement that the decision had been taken in the “public interest”, but one of the problems is that the FCRA definition of

“activities prejudicial to the public interest”

is extremely vague. Will the Minister seek from the Indian Government an explanation of why Oxfam India’s activities are regarded as

“not in the public interest”?

Oxfam India has now filed a petition to the Indian Government for a final administrative review. There has as yet been no response.

On 10 February, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, Sir Matthew Rycroft, raised this issue with his counterpart at the Indian Home Ministry. In response to my written question, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), said on 17 May:

“The Permanent Secretary addressed the difficulties that some NGOs in India have faced due to the enforcement of the FCRA, which is impacting both on the work we are funding and the work of UK-headquartered global NGOs in India.”

I very much welcome the permanent secretary’s intervention on this issue, but as I understand it, the Indian Government have given no assurances at all about whether these cases will be reviewed. There is clearly a lot more to do. In answering my question, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said that the UK continues

“to monitor developments related to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, especially impacts on UK Government-funded programmes in India, and the work of British NGOs in India.”

However, we need more than monitoring. I am sure the Minister will agree with me about the negative impact of the FCRA, and I ask her and her colleagues to press the Indian authorities to review the legislation and lift some of the restrictions. They should also press for greater transparency of FCRA licence determination.

I will finish with the words of Amitabh Behar—the chief executive of Oxfam India, whom I met on a recent Zoom seminar—about what is happening in India. He told the BBC:

“The Ministry of Home Affairs’ decision to deny renewal of FCRA registration will severely hamper these collaborations which were providing relief to those who needed it the most during times of crisis.”

I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that Her Majesty’s Government recognise the importance of this issue, and that the influence of her Department will be brought to bear in order to promote freedom of expression, even where it makes Governments uncomfortable at times.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

If it is helpful, Minister, the debate needs to finish by 16.43. It is a matter for you whether you take all the available time.

Compulsory Jobs Guarantee

Debate between Derek Twigg and Stephen Timms

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

I shall be discussing Jobs Growth Wales. I believe the hon. Gentleman is commending it, and I agree with him; it has been a great success and there are certainly lessons to be learned by the rest of the UK from the great success of that programme.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend rightly says that young people, in particular, have been suffering and continue to suffer under this Government. Is not one of the important points about our jobs guarantee the fact that it will give young people experience in work? One of the biggest problems on getting into work is that lack of experience because these people cannot get a job.

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right about that. I have spoken to a large number of people, including young people whose break came through the future jobs fund. They have said that having got six months’ work under their belts, thanks to that initiative, they were then able to look after themselves and apply for jobs, do well and build a career. As he rightly says, young people need that crucial first break and that is what this guarantee will provide.

Every day of unemployment means hardship, worry and missed opportunity for someone who wants to be working and earning. But the full costs are borne more widely and last much longer. Every day of unemployment is a cost to the taxpayer in unemployment benefit and tax revenue forgone, and a cost to the economy in lost output. It also imposes a cost we can never account for, through the strain it puts on individuals, families and communities. Those costs—in benefit spending, tax revenues, economic output, and individual and social well-being—can reach far into the future, as the scarring effects of unemployment build up.

The Acevo commission on youth unemployment found that people who experienced unemployment in their younger years are more likely to suffer not only spells of unemployment in later life, but in work an average wage penalty of more than 15%. That is why it is so troubling that youth unemployment is going back up. It is back up today to more than three-quarters of a million. Young women now unemployed will, a decade from now, be earning on average £1,700 a year less as a result of being unemployed today. Young men now unemployed will be earning £3,300 less a decade from now. Those effects worsen the longer that somebody is out of work.

Work by Paul Gregg at the university of Bath and Emma Tommony at the university of York suggests that the 200,000 young people who have now been out of work for more than a year are, on average, likely to spend another two years either unemployed or economically inactive between the ages of 28 and 33, and that the men, by the age of 42, will be suffering a wage penalty of more than £7,000 a year. Those are big effects that need to be addressed.