Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Rushanara Ali

Thursday 6th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her statement today and also for her dedicated hard work on this really challenging but very important issue. I also commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. I very much support what he said, particularly regarding targeted religious minorities, which I want to focus on in my speech, particularly because I am concerned about those in my role as the Prime Minister’s envoy for freedom of religion or belief.

In the penultimate Prime Minister’s questions before Christmas, I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether the promised gift of resettlement for Afghans who are members of religious minorities would be available by the end of Christmas. If I am right, last night was Twelfth Night, so, being generous, may I give the Minister the benefit of the extra day and say thank you for getting the ACRS up and running now? I note, however, that it is only from the spring that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will refer refugees to the scheme, based on assessments of protection need. That sounds more like a Coptic Christmas timeline to me, but, more seriously, the delay in providing refuge and support for vulnerable religious minorities concerns me, and I know that it concerns many of my colleagues in the organisation of which I, as the Prime Minister’s envoy, am a member. That is the 33-country alliance of envoys, which is called the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance.

The alliance issued a statement in support of vulnerable individuals being targeted in Afghanistan because of their faith or belief. I commend that statement to the Minister, not least because it demonstrates that there are international partners who most seriously do share our concerns about the vulnerable situation of those being targeted for their beliefs in Afghanistan. I will just read out a little from it:

“We hold grave concerns for…members of religious minority groups who are at risk, including Shi’a and Ismaili Muslims, Hazaras, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, non-believers, and others. We call upon all parties and international agencies to recognize the vulnerabilities of these individuals being targeted because of their faith or belief.”

The statement goes on to call for, among other things,

“a renewed humanitarian effort by the international community.”

I was interested to note today in the Minister’s statement her reference to the scale of the challenge and the need to co-ordinate closely with international partners, as indeed the alliance has done. It was very encouraging that, during the preparation of its statement, two alliance countries, the US and Brazil, got together; one supplied a plane and the other supplied the visas, and they were able to fly out 193 members of religious minorities from Afghanistan. It is that kind of international co-operation that I am sure the Minister is speaking of, but could I ask her, please, for more information as to how the UK is doing this and how we can fulfil the IRFBA statement’s intent?

I have of course spoken directly to members of several religious communities, as I know many colleagues have, so I will not go into detail as to the concerns that I share about the risks to these communities, but I am pleased that the Government have, rightly, included religious minorities in the criteria for eligibility for the ACRS, and I was pleased today in the House to hear the Minister’s assurance that the scheme is open now to vulnerable religious minorities and that that could be combined with community sponsorship. I will say a little more about that shortly.

First, with regard to the UNHCR refugee referral scheme starting in the spring, could the Minister clarify that it is based on the Government’s announced eligibility criteria, which specifically include minority groups, and that it is not wholly delegated to the UNHCR’s assessments of protection need? In terms of protection services, the principle of non-discrimination prevents the UNHCR from specifically targeting minority groups, so it means that arguably members of the LGBT community, who were rightly evacuated under the ARAP—Afghan relocations and assistance policy—scheme, might well not have been eligible under the UNHCR scheme. A further concern about the scheme is that religious belief is not a specific UNHCR eligibility criterion or an automatic indicator of need in its own right. In the past, that led to criticism of the operation of the Syrian resettlement scheme when it came to resettling religious minorities—specifically Christians—in the UK.

I hope that Members will bear with me as I cite some figures that bear that out. In 2017, the Barnabas Fund obtained data that revealed that in 2015, of the 2,637 individuals recommended to the UK by the UNHCR for resettlement, only 43 were Christians, even though Christians are widely accepted as constituting 10% of Syria’s pre-war population; only one was Shi’a, who were estimated to be 1.5% of the population; and only 13 were Yazidis. The following year, 2016, of the 7,499 individuals recommended to the UK by the UNHCR for resettlement, only 27 were Christians, 13 were Shi’a and five were Yazidis. Interestingly, it is estimated that Syria’s pre-war population was 74% Sunni Muslim, 13% Shi’a and Alawite, 10% Christian and 3% Druze, and that there were 70,000 Yazidis.

In the ACRS, the Government have made membership of a minority group a specific eligibility criterion, consistent with the new plan for immigration. Let me quote the wording of that plan for the record, because it is good and clear. It states:

“We will also ensure our resettlement offer encompasses persecuted refugees from a broader range of minority groups (including, for example, Christians in some parts of the world). We know that across the globe there are minority groups that are systematically persecuted for their gender, religion or belief and we want to ensure our resettlement offer properly reflects these groups. We will strengthen our engagement with global charities and international partners to ensure that minority groups facing persecution are able to be referred so their case can be considered for resettlement in the UK more easily.”

Although the Minister’s response to my question earlier today gave me hope, I would like more information about how the new plan is to be implemented, particularly because, to date, I am not aware of the evacuation to the UK of any individuals who have been targeted specifically because of their religion.

Despite good intentions, there is real concern that religious minorities will still not be included in the ACRS in the spring, or indeed in the first year of the scheme’s operation, if it is based solely on the UNHCR protection criteria. The Home Office does not have to rely solely on the UNHCR for resettlement assessment; it could conduct such assessments itself. It is clear that, in the case of Afghans in Afghanistan, the UNHCR does not have a mandate to deal with their situation; it can do so only if they arrive in Pakistan, for example, which is risky and causes many other challenges. The assessment could be done by the Home Office in house, as it is currently for some asylum applications, and it could be assisted by trusted partner organisations.

As I said I would, I come to the community sponsorship scheme. I suggest that one way to harness the Government’s commitment to the scheme, which is welcomed by the UNHCR and would provide a bespoke legal route of resettlement for religious communities, is to look at the Canadian scheme of community sponsorship for resettlement. Very substantial numbers of refugees have been resettled as a result of that scheme, which involved close to 2 million adult Canadians supporting local community sponsorship of Syrian refugees, many of whom were survivors of violence or torture whose life, liberty, safety or other fundamental rights were at risk. Many were vulnerable women or girls. Two thirds of the resettled refugees coming to Canada were privately sponsored by Canadian citizens under that scheme. Recent research suggests that comparative data emanating from that programme over the past 40 years demonstrates that sponsored refugees have better and quicker integration outcomes than refugees settled through more traditional Government schemes.

[Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)]

Order. Does the hon. Lady mind wrapping up? We have one more speaker whom I want to fit in.

[Fiona Bruce]

I will do so, Ms Ali.

I suggest to the Minister that we consider the main elements of the Canadian community sponsorship model and see how we could adopt them in the UK. May we meet to discuss this issue? Finally, I place on the record my commendation of the volunteers in my constituency, the Welcome Churches in Sandbach and the LOL Foundation in Congleton, which have done so much to support the Afghan refugees in Sandbach.

[Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)]

I call Alison Thewliss. I would be very grateful if you could keep your speech to about three to four minutes.

Post-2015 Development Goals

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Rushanara Ali

Thursday 4th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Rushanara Ali]

I look forward to the next instalment from the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman and his team. We need to settle the question of how we respond to some of the domestic criticisms on giving aid to big emerging economies, such as India, where hundreds of millions of people still face deep poverty. Many other nations are in that position. We need a political response and an approach that explains why such aid matters. We must also look at how the international community brings in nations that are doing well, such as India and China, to be genuine partners in development, so that we can contribute together to tackle poverty in middle-income countries. Only then will we be able to address the political criticisms and critiques that we face in our country—that also happens in other countries—and settle the question of how we should respond to the challenges.

If we do not address poverty in middle-income countries, we will set ourselves up for future problems—and even very wealthy countries have recently faced conflict. It is far better to anticipate difficulties and consider how we might respond as part of the development agenda process, so I hope the Minister will shed more light on her ideas about how we might do that.

In the remaining time, I shall focus on economic growth and development. Right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned the importance of employment, economic growth and the role of the private sector. Opposition Members very much support building self-sufficiency and creating opportunities for people to become independent and be able to look after themselves, which is at the heart of what people want. We need to ensure that the allocation of DFID resources through private sector programmes is transparent and properly monitored, just as we would expect with NGOs, and that public money is not used in an ideological manner. We must look at where the impact is, whether the outcomes are those that we sought—creating opportunity, jobs and economic development—and whether the programmes are pro-poor.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Lady is right to raise that pertinent point. The Committee is examining different ways to advance funds—not purely through grants, but perhaps repayable loans or joint investments—in ways that ensure that an appropriate return for our taxpayers, which can then be reinvested, is gleaned from the funds invested.

[Rushanara Ali]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, and I hope that the Committee will interrogate the CDC about its role in de-risking investment opportunities for companies, because that is one reason it was set up. Too often, people have been concerned that it replicates what the private sector can do and does not act as much of a catalyst to enable innovative finance to go into those countries. I hope, therefore, that that will be looked into, as well as some of the private sector funds that DFID has recently set up. The Opposition want any investments that are made to create genuine economic opportunities and taxpayers’ money to be properly spent.

I have two other points to make. The first is about the impact of conflict on women in particular, and on children. We see all too well that that is another major issue that risks setting back any progress made on development. For example, in the Burmese state of Rakhine, which I visited recently, progress is being made, but the treatment of certain minorities and of women in those groups is setting back progress. We need to ensure that human rights and women’s empowerment are at the heart of development, and I welcome the references made to that by the high-level panel and by the Committee.

Secondly, we need to recognise that world demographics are rapidly changing. Increasing populations, and a growing middle class in India, China, Indonesia and many other countries, present major opportunities, but also pose major challenges due to the pressures on natural resources. As is pointed out in the report, the high-level panel discussion must integrate sustainable development goals into the post-millennium development goals framework. Segmented, siloed approaches will not do for the next phase of what we are trying to achieve and for what we need the international community to work towards addressing.

I have a series of questions to pose to the Minister. In focusing on what happens with the post-2015 goals, what will the Government do to drive home the message of economic opportunity through job creation, apprenticeships and tertiary education?

The Minister will be aware that a major additional support for developing countries is remittance income, which eclipses development aid from the whole world put together. Recent changes, led from the US, are affecting the UK, with banking facilities to remittance companies and money transfer companies being removed by Barclays bank. Therefore, hundreds of billions of pounds are at risk of not getting to developing countries, and the cost of sending that money might increase. In countries such as Somalia, which is a post-conflict state, family members are not getting money into their loved ones’ pockets. We are talking about very poor people who do not receive development aid, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that point.

The UK Government need to work with the US Government, and the high-level panel ought to look at additional income sources going into developing countries. If the route by which the income gets to its destination is damaged, an even greater challenge is posed to international development budgets, in addition to the tasks at hand of reducing poverty, improving health incomes and tackling educational inequalities. What is the Minister going to do about that issue, which will affect hundreds of thousands of people just in the UK, never mind in other countries? I would be happy to brief her after the debate, if she would like that.

I shall conclude, because I am conscious that we have another debate coming up. I very much hope that the post-2015 development goals have an ambitious focus on working with developing countries, NGOs, and local organisations and populations, both here and in developing countries. The Opposition believe that we must put social justice, tackling inequality, and promoting human rights and labour standards at the heart of the post-2015 goals. If we do not do that, the international community should not be surprised, for example, that in countries such as Bangladesh we witness more than 1,100 people unnecessarily losing their lives in industrial accidents that could have been prevented had labour standards and human rights standards been properly applied. The high-level panel and the international community must ensure that human rights, labour standards and women’s rights are at the heart of everything that is proposed, alongside the economic and social goals.

I hope that our Government—DFID Ministers working with other Ministers and the Prime Minister—will include the rights framework in those proposals, as well as social justice and inclusive pro-poor economic growth. That would address the points that have been made about creating opportunities and building self-sufficiency and independence in people’s lives, so that over time our assistance will be less necessary. Our assistance will always be necessary when there are humanitarian challenges, but development assistance will be less needed over time if we get our act together and ensure that we genuinely help to lift people out of poverty, and give them the opportunity to generate income, set up businesses and create a way of life that builds self-sufficiency.

That is what people in countries where we provide assistance want. We, as taxpayers, want to ensure that we do not put on our televisions and see images of poverty and inequality—year in, year out. We want results. I hope that is what will be focused on, building on the MDGs and the contributions already made to developing countries by the international community.