Kashmir

John Spellar Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Westminster Hall

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on securing this debate and introducing it so well. It is very noticeably a cross-party assembly here, and we will be hearing many views from all sides. Frankly, this is not a matter of left and right; it is a matter of right and wrong.

We are not against India. It is a huge country with an incredible history and limitless potential, but that does not mean that we should not hold the Indian Government to account for their abusive behaviour, especially in Kashmir. We also reject any argument in relation to Kashmir, the Punjab or the Uyghurs in China that these are internal matters and of no concern to those outside. Human rights are actually a universal matter and universal concern. That was unambiguously established 75 years ago this week, just across the road from here, when the United Nations had its first meeting of its Assembly and its Security Council.

Britain, of course, has a special place in raising this matter, not just because of our history but because of the concern of thousands of our constituents, who are desperately worried about their families in Jammu and Kashmir. It is made even worse when communications are shut down and they have to spend weeks and sometimes months with no idea what has happened to their loved ones. Obviously, that is of deep concern to them, and that is why it should be of deep concern to us.

Can we be clear? The current crisis has been deliberately instigated by the Indian authorities with their rewriting of the long-standing constitution, which has been left by parties of different stripes in India before. That has undermined the autonomy of Kashmir. There has also been the change to property law, to try to change the facts on the ground in Kashmir, fundamentally by changing the population and therefore trying to secure a different outcome from a possible referendum.

Then, in the face of understandable opposition, there was a dramatic and brutal shutdown of communications and there were beatings of individuals, shootings—including many well attested cases of people being hit by birdshot and blinded as a consequence—arrests and disappearances, which I have to say were also an appalling feature of the crackdown in the Punjab after the assault on the Golden Temple. And many report that this is still going on.

So bad was the situation that for quite a long time Indian opposition politicians were denied the right to visit the area by the authorities. In spite of condemnation from around the world, oppression continues to this day, and we have the dangerous situation of two nuclear powers facing off and shooting against each other across the border. Clearly, not only is that a matter of concern to those in the area, but it should be of great concern to the international community as a potential threat to world peace and international order.

I hope that the Minister will acknowledge in his reply the suffering of the people of Kashmir—previous Ministers have indicated that they have raised the issues strongly with Indian Ministers—and his concern. Will he tell us what the Government intend to do to bring about peace and justice to this beautiful but troubled land, and to bring peace of mind to its people and to their families here in the United Kingdom?

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

It may help to say that after the next speaker, I will have to reduce the timing to four minutes.

Persecution of Ahmadis

John Spellar Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Imran Ahmad Khan]

The right of people everywhere to live, work and worship as they choose is the most fundamental and universal right that we have. It makes no sense, either to an individual or to a state, to inhibit, stamp on or impede that right, because that means that the very blossom and flower of the state and of the children of the state is trampled on. We in this venerable place should not think, “Why would they do such a thing?” because what is happening is of no purpose and of no sense—it is senseless and deeply upsetting because of that.

Freedom of religious belief, as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and other values that we in the United Kingdom hold dearly, such as tolerance and celebration of pluralism, are not just ideals to be debated in this House, discussed in lecture halls or written about by academics; they have, as we have discussed, very real consequences for the lives of people everywhere.

My own family understand this only too well. I could place on the record the numerous attacks against my immediate family, my larger family and myself. For example, my first cousin’s Syrian husband, Dr Mousallam Al-Droubi, left Damascus and was worshipping at an Ahmadi mosque in Lahore in May 2010 when gunmen stormed in, massacred 87 supplicants around him and left him and over 120 other worshippers with grave injuries, all on account of their belief. Their crime? To worship as Muslims.

Pakistan is the world’s leading exporter of hate across the globe, which it fabricates on an industrial scale. This dangerous extremism and religiously inspired violence has been broadcast, transmitted and normalised in communities around the world, who ape this hideous behaviour.

For example, anti-Ahmadi hate speech has been broadcast through television and radio in the United Kingdom. Channel 44, an Urdu language current affairs satellite channel, was fined £45,000 by Ofcom for airing two episodes of a discussion programme which featured a participant making serious and unsubstantiated claims against the Ahmadiyya community. That was not the first such case. In 2013, Takbeer TV, a free-to-air Islamic channel, was fined £25,000 after broadcasting statements describing Ahmadis as having “monstrous intentions” and being “lying monsters”.

There is a direct connection and correlation between that sort of hate speech and violence perpetrated against members of the Ahmadiyya Jamaat. Freedom of speech certainly is a vital pillar of our way of life, but incitement to murder and violence is not, and never has been, freedom of speech. Hatred preached in Pakistan does indeed result in violence on the streets of the UK and around the world.

The 2016 murder of Scottish Ahmadi shopkeeper Asad Shah, while working peacefully in his shop in Glasgow, evidences that truth. His crime? Sending out Easter greetings to his Christian neighbours and friends. Like all Ahmadis, he felt a part of that community, and they a part of his. Here we see the Ahmadis’ belief in love for all and hatred for none juxtaposed against the peddlers of hate.

A report by the all-party parliamentary group for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community entitled “Suffocation of the Faithful” has raised concerns that the deliberate targeting of members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat in the United Kingdom originates from Pakistan—a result of the filthy reservoir of hate that Pakistan permits and enables. Worse, there is evidence, as outlined in the APPG’s report, that aid money given by Her Majesty’s Government is spent on supporting Government-run schools in Pakistan that encourage intolerance and hatred.

Professor Javaid Rehman provided damning evidence on nationalised schools in Pakistan when he spoke at the second session of the APPG inquiry, which the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) so ably chaired. He said:

“I was just horrified to see what is being taught to our young children, for example this word ‘Kafir’ non-believer or infidel is openly said about Ahmadiyya but also about other communities, it’s part of our teaching system”.

I fear that the international aid provided to Pakistan by Her Majesty’s Government for the purpose of helping education is, on occasion, unwittingly fuelling hatred and prejudice in a new generation of Pakistanis. In order to ensure that that never happens again, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can provide assurances from the Dispatch Box on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government that UK aid and development funding will not go to groups, individuals or programmes that are engaged in the promotion of hate, whether that be directed against Christians, Hindus, Ahmadis or others.

I have briefly outlined the nature of some of the outrages suffered by Ahmadis and their Jamaat, but what effect does the persecution and discrimination of the Ahmadi community have on Ahmadis and on Pakistan itself? Thousands of Pakistanis have sought refuge in freedom-loving western nations. Even the global Ahmadiyya headquarters was moved to the United Kingdom in 1984. Others, having escaped from Pakistan, find themselves in third countries where they are unwelcome and face again the horrors of persecution, predicated upon their faith.

I urge Her Majesty’s Government to employ their influence and create a coalition of our friends and allies to pressure the Government of Pakistan to reverse the abhorrent constitutional vandalism that has been engineered on the freedom of religious belief, and to release all Pakistani citizens from the bondage of zealous tyranny and the fear of persecution.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing this important issue into the public debate. He mentioned the large community who are established here, but will he also mention the huge contribution that they make in the United Kingdom particularly in charitable work and also in community work? Quite apart from their peaceful message, they play a very valuable and active role, working hard in the community.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

It is a real pleasure to respond to this debate. I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) for securing it, and for his passionate, thoughtful and considered speech. I pay tribute to his work on freedom of religion and belief, including in promoting and protecting the rights of Ahmadi Muslims, and his work as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. I am also grateful for the contributions and interventions of other hon. Members.

I thank the APPG for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community for its recent report. On 21 July, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who is Minister for South Asia, spoke at the launch event for the report, and expressed the UK Government’s deep concerns about discrimination and violence against the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, including in Pakistan. Today we have heard of the appalling discrimination suffered by Ahmadi Muslims in many countries. Hon. Members have mentioned Pakistan in particular, but, as we have heard, the UK is not immune from such religious intolerance—I think particularly of the horrendous case of the gentleman in Glasgow. That is why this Government work tirelessly to promote and defend the rights of people of all faiths and none around the world. People must be able to practise their faith and express their beliefs without fear or discrimination. I will address some of the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend.

[John Spellar]

The Minister has rightly drawn the attention of the House to the appalling incidents that take place at the extremes of the spectrum, but are there not also lower-level activities—for example, attempts to organise boycotts against businesses owned by Ahmadis and general lower-level harassment? Should not the authorities be cracking down on such activity and saying, “This is unacceptable in this country”?

[Nigel Adams]

The right hon. Gentleman is bang on; of course we should be calling out this behaviour. Many of these activities take place on social media. We will be bringing forward an online harms Bill, and we hope some of these issues will be addressed. In this country, we pride ourselves on people’s ability to practise freedom of religion or belief. He makes an incredibly important point.

We have heard about recent incidents of discrimination, including violence, against the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan. Its constitution does not allow Ahmadiyya Muslims to call themselves Muslims. Ahmadiyya Muslims face violence, killings and attacks on their places of worship and, as I have said, social media hate campaigns and discrimination in employment and education. There have been recent horrifying examples of this discrimination. Lord Ahmad publicly condemned the murder of Mr Mahboob Ahmad Khan in Peshawar in November. Everything points to Mr Khan having been murdered for his faith, as an Ahmadiyya Muslim. We have heard from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) about the tragic killing of an Ahmadiyya Muslim, Dr Tahir Ahmad, in Nankana Sahib in Pakistan during Friday prayers last week. I extend my personal condolences to the families of Mr Khan and Dr Ahmad, and to members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community.

Those are not isolated incidents; as we have heard, there have been other abhorrent murders in Pakistan of Ahmadiyya Muslims and other apparently religiously motivated killings. We condemn all these murders in the strongest possible terms. My ministerial colleague Lord Ahmad also raised the UK Government’s concern about these murders with Pakistan’s human rights Minister, Dr Shireen Mazari, as recently as 16 November. We have pressed for full, transparent investigations into these killings that result in the identification and prosecution of those responsible.

British Citizens Abroad: FCO Help to Return Home

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his kind words. With the effort to get people out of Morocco, where we have worked with the airlines in what was a model and template for the future, we managed to get 8,500-plus passengers back home. We will seek to replicate that in all the jurisdictions he has mentioned.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by constituents stuck in India and Pakistan because of the closure of the airports there, but all around the world thousands of planes and pilots are underemployed or, indeed, even laid off. Is there not a real role for Government to mobilise the aviation industry and the airports and, indeed, to co-operate with those other Governments to actually get the airlift working to bring our people home?

[Dominic Raab]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Transport Secretary is already engaged in those discussions with individual airlines. There is a practical, legal question of whether those airlines can get into the relevant countries and jurisdictions, and that is why I will be raising the matter at G7 level tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. She will know that the UK is the No. 1 contributor to vaccines worldwide in the development space. She will also know that the UK will be hosting the Gavi replenishment next year and that for every pound spent on vaccines £21 is recouped; this remains one of our best buys in terms of international development, and we made that clear at the UN General Assembly last week.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

T3. The Minister is aware of the devastating 2005 earthquake in Azad Kashmir, with massive loss of life and damage to housing and infrastructure—and of the gratifying international response, with assistance. Although the recent earthquakes were not on the same scale, they are causing major hardship; so what assistance is the Department providing to the authorities there, both for emergency relief and for long-term reconstruction, to help the long-suffering people of Azad Kashmir?

[Alok Sharma]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are a major aid donor to Pakistan overall. We are in discussions with the National Disaster Management Authority in Pakistan, and we stand ready to respond and provide funding if it is indeed requested.

Jallianwala Bagh Massacre

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. This weekend gurdwaras across the UK and across the world will remember the massacre with sadness and anger, and we should recognise that.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Should it not be reinforced to the Minister and the Foreign Office that the 100th anniversary is the most pertinent time to make an apology? With Baisakhi festivals taking place all over the country in the next couple of weeks, it would be good if the Minister were able to give good news to those gatherings today.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The centenary of such an event is the right time to apologise and own up to what happened, as opposed to simply acknowledging the dreadful event and atrocity that took place. The British Government at the time accepted responsibility, but did not issue an apology, and one should be issued, particularly at this time. Although a mixture of people of different faiths were massacred, it was predominantly people of the Sikh religion who suffered.

I classify myself as a firm friend of India. I am a devout patriot of this country, but it makes me sad and ashamed that the massacre was perpetrated in our name. It is time to own up to it and make an apology and time to make suitable reparations for the damage it caused not only to people present and their families, but to the relationship between India and the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate, for his long-standing work on the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, and for his tremendous commitment to south Asia. This has been a compelling debate, and in my reply I will go into some detail. As I think hon. Members recognise, it would not be appropriate for me to make the apology today that many wish for, and I am glad that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) recognised that in their contributions. However, I will say a little bit about the path that we are on.

It is fair to say at the outset that I have slightly orthodox views on these matters; I feel a little reluctant to make apologies for things that have happened in the past. Obviously, any Government Department has concerns about making any apology, given that there may well be financial implications to doing so. I also worry a little bit that we debase the currency of apologies if we make them in relation to many, many events. However, if the House will bear with me, I have found almost all of today’s contributions extremely compelling. They were made in the right tone—one not of anger but of regret—and with a keen eye on the future. That is my view on this matter, and I assure the House that it is a work in progress. An active debate is taking place among Ministers and senior officials, not least our excellent high commissioner in New Delhi, Sir Dominic Asquith—who is of course related to Herbert Asquith, quotes from whom have come up in today’s debate.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has rightly said, later this week we will mark the centenary of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. I recognise the enduring, very deep feelings and emotions that this incident continues to raise, not just in the House but across the world. I thank my hon. Friend for setting out the full context of the events of Sunday 13 April 1919. Brigadier-General Dyer had received news that a 15,000-strong peaceful crowd had gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh—the walled public garden in Amritsar, in the heart of the Punjab. Brigadier-General Dyer entered that walled garden that afternoon with 50 rifle-armed and 40 other British Indian Army soldiers. Without warning, he ordered those soldiers to fire into the large, unarmed crowd that was gathered there, killing hundreds of protestors from the Sikh, Hindu and Muslim faiths in the space of just 10 minutes.

Let me be clear: this was a tragedy, and a shameful episode in British history. The British Government of the day rightly condemned the incident, and there was strong criticism on the Floor of the House from some unexpected quarters. Members have referred to the former Prime Minister, H.H. Asquith, and as others have pointed out, Winston Churchill—then Secretary of State for War—described it as a “monstrous event”. One century later, we as the successors of that Government recognise that people here and in India continue to feel very deeply about this issue.

There is increasingly strong recognition that a formal acknowledgement of deep regret is important to help frame the modern bilateral relationship that increasingly thrives in a wide range of globally significant areas of mutual interest in which Indian and UK values align. I have been taken by the contributions that Members have made, including what the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) rightly said. I hope that we do not preach in the world, but I think we stand up for what we regard as the rules-based international order. We stand shoulder to shoulder with India in so many of those areas that, when we state these things, we perhaps do not entirely recognise the sense of hypocrisy arising from our colonial past. It is important that we make those acknowledgements.

We are committed to ensuring that what took place in Jallianwala Bagh on 13 April 100 years ago should not be forgotten. That is why I welcome the tabling of this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. It is right that we continue to pay our respects to the victims, and we shall strive to learn from and appreciate the passions that arise from these events.

We also recognise how important it is that, during the course of this year, we mark this sombre anniversary in the most appropriate way. In India, I have asked representatives from our High Commission in New Delhi to visit the site to lay a wreath on behalf of the British Government, and there will be further acknowledgement of those terrible events in the months ahead. I also reassure all hon. Members that the Government will publicly acknowledge the centenary closer to home in the United Kingdom, looking back with the deepest regret on what occurred, but also looking forward to the strong bonds that both our countries are building for the future. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I look a little bit at some of those bonds, which are worth putting into context.

[John Spellar]

The Minister has heard the very strong feeling from both sides of the Chamber on this particular issue. In the light of that, will he be reporting back to the Foreign Office and to No. 10 to ask them to reconsider giving an apology for this awful event?

[Mark Field]

May I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that there have been many compelling speeches, and I will touch on them towards the end of my comments? He should recognise that it is not an issue of reconsidering; there is an ongoing sense of consideration that is happening in that regard. It is worth pointing out that we must always remember that issues such as this frame our history, and we expect them to do so. I believe that we have, and we must continue to do so, but it is also right that, in focusing on the future, we work to build and sustain a flourishing partnership that benefits all our citizens. It is evident that that ambition for the future was shared in the discussions that took place between Prime Minister Modi and Prime Minister May at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting here in London last April.

Today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) rightly recognised in his compelling contribution, we have a thriving and respectful partnership of equals. It is important to recognise that. That is why I think my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made New Delhi her very first port of call after her appointment, and why she was so pleased to welcome Prime Minister Modi to London last year. It is also why I have been to India no fewer than three times in the past 18 months, visiting Mumbai, Chennai and Hyderabad, as well as, of course, visiting New Delhi on each occasion.

As a result, I have experienced our dynamic relationship first hand, in many different ways. We share a proud parliamentary tradition, a global outlook and a commitment to maintaining the rules-based international system, which is coming under threat from unexpected quarters, but remains the bedrock of global security and prosperity. I can testify to the fact that our relationship is characterised by close collaboration and mutual respect, and is focused on enhancing the prosperity and security of our people. That is why India and the UK signed our first framework agreement on cyber co-operation, which will help to write global rules on cyber.

We have launched our ambitious technology partnership, marrying Indian and British skills and ingenuity to drive forward the fourth industrial revolution. We also, of course, welcome many talented Indian workers to this country; indeed, we issue more skilled work visas to India than to all other countries combined. The numbers of Indians coming to visit and work and study in the UK are all on the rise, with a 35% increase in student visas, a 6% increase in work visas and a 10% increase in visit visas in the year 2018.

Venezuela

John Spellar Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

And finally, Mr John Spellar.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I would certainly have hoped that Andrew Neil’s recent demolition of Ken Livingstone had put to bed any claims that there had been general sanctions on Venezuela, rather than targeted ones on regime individuals. So I welcome Britain’s recognition of Juan Guaidó as the lawful President of Venezuela, and I welcome the announcement of the current aid effort. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) kindly referred to my call for a Marshall plan for Venezuela, so may I again urge imaginative and detailed plans for the rapid subsequent reconstruction of Venezuela’s economy and infrastructure? Are the Minister’s Department and the Department for International Development getting on with that work, and if not, why not?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I fully acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s point. He is very wise to be thinking ahead in this way, because the inevitable need for rapid delivery of resources can suddenly become apparent, and it is important that the world is ready to leap straightaway into action. As I said earlier, I have seen this through pledging conferences in various countries, and I have no doubt that there will have to be extensive multilateral assistance to help Venezuela to rebuild, after which I think they will be able to rebuild themselves; but a bit of pump-priming and basic food and medicine and the addressing of disease and malnutrition needs to start as soon as possible. As I said, first that will be multilateral; there will need to be a lot of UN effort, to which we are a major contributor. I am due to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development next week, having spoken to her on Monday, and I will convey, as strongly as I possibly can, the views of the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that she is aware of the sort of plan that may be necessary.

Venezuela

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I will make some progress, but if I have time, I will give way later.

When I spoke about Venezuela at Chatham House in October, I described the demise of a once vibrant nation, charting, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Derby North, the many decisions that had been taken to prove that this was a Chavista-made crisis and not a US one. Since then we have seen no improvement; in fact, the situation has gone from bad to worse. The social implications are astonishing: four-fifths of Venezuelans are living in poverty. They are vulnerable to malnutrition and disease because of shortages of food and medicines. The poor are not just poorer—they are destitute. More than 3 million people have been driven to leave the country—10% of the population. In the UK, that would equate to almost the entire population of London. That massive exodus puts enormous pressure on neighbouring states, particularly Colombia, Peru and Ecuador. We applaud the remarkable generosity towards Venezuelan migrants of those countries, and that of Brazil and other countries in the region.

As well as punishing his own people, Maduro has damaged Venezuela’s reputation and relations in the region and the wider international community. Instead of diplomacy, he has chosen confrontation. He has deliberately sought confrontation through reckless border incursions by the Venezuelan security forces. He has cut off any means of diplomatic engagement, including by announcing Venezuela’s withdrawal from the Organisation of American States in 2017, and his conduct inexcusably threatens the peace process in neighbouring Colombia.

Under the Maduro regime Venezuela’s democratic institutions, including the judiciary, the national electoral authorities and local government, have been systematically undermined, while political repression and electoral malpractice have increased. The creation of an all-powerful Constituent Assembly in August 2017 was clearly a deliberate attempt to neutralise the democratically elected National Assembly. Over the past two years, election after election has been manipulated, culminating in a presidential election in May 2018 that few apart from the Government themselves considered free and fair. At Saturday’s United Nations Security Council meeting, which I attended, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Arreaza waved a copy of, and spoke passionately about, the constitution, yet it is Maduro who has trashed that constitution and Juan Guaidó who has upheld it.

The political Opposition have been suppressed and intimidated, their leaders have fled or been imprisoned, and we will never forget that the Opposition activist Fernando Albán was detained and then found dead beneath the windows of the national intelligence facility. Some leading Opposition leaders have been imprisoned, forced into exile or banned from holding public office. Maduro has cynically used his control of supposedly independent institutions such as the Supreme Court and the National Electoral Council to cement his position. There was global criticism of the May 2018 presidential elections, with allegations of electoral malpractice and the banning of Opposition parties.

Those actions, along with the recent brutal suppression of demonstrations in Venezuela, are symptoms of an increasingly intolerant Government turning to repression simply to cling on to power. Ironically, Maduro’s re-inauguration on 10 January might just have been a catalyst for change, but a clumsy attempt to intimidate the new president of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, by temporarily detaining him backfired spectacularly.

We know what has happened recently. During an Opposition protest on 23 January, Guaidó declared the May 2018 presidential elections fraudulent—and they were. Citing article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution, he declared himself interim President of Venezuela, and he was swiftly recognised by the United States and 12 Lima Group countries. As of this moment, 22 countries have recognised him as the interim President.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Very briefly.

[John Spellar]

If we get Juan Guaidó as the full, proper President, he will still need to reconstruct the economy, which has been wasted by the Maduro regime. Will the Minister look again at my suggestion yesterday that we need a Marshall plan to get Venezuela’s resources up and running as quickly as possible so that it can, like post-war Europe, sustain itself?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

One of the blessings of Venezuela is that it has resources; its tragedy is that they have been exploited and destroyed by Maduro and his cronies. The right hon. Gentleman is right. We will look at anything to try to get those resources serving the needs of Venezuelans, who I hope will be able to return in their hundreds of thousands, if not their millions, to the country they have fled.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in Washington on 24 January, the UK believes that Maduro is not the legitimate leader of Venezuela, and that Guaidó is the right person to take Venezuela forward. As I said at the UN Security Council meeting on Saturday, we will recognise Guaidó as constitutional interim President if new elections are not announced within eight days of that meeting. The sorts of actions called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) will be addressed then, as we assess what needs to be done after the world comes together, as I hope it does, to point out and act on the fact that Maduro is not the legitimate President of Venezuela.

Venezuela

John Spellar Excerpts

Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

My right hon. Friend is right. This has significance across the world because large amounts of drugs are trafficked through Venezuela. Of course, one cannot tackle that problem with the Government of Venezuela because they are party to that inappropriate drug trafficking themselves. Therefore, the solution for the streets of Harlow when it comes to Venezuela is to deal with a legitimate Government who are prepared to tackle the problem head-on in Venezuela.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

After a proper ballot and, hopefully, the election success of Juan Guaidó— whose party, incidentally, is a member of the Socialist International—Venezuela will still face an existential crisis, with the Maduro legacy of economic meltdown, a collapsing oil industry, hyperinflation, food shortages and 3 million citizens in exile. Should not the UK, the EU and the international community be preparing a Marshall plan for the reconstruction of Venezuela?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

One of the tragedies of Venezuela is that it has massive resources of its own. If only they were properly used, invested in and managed, no Marshall plan would be necessary in the way the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The country would be able to take advantage of having some of the greatest oil reserves in the world.

Jagtar Singh Johal

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I certainly agree. The international rules-based system is being attacked at every corner, and those of us who believe in liberal democratic government should give no inch to calling out undemocratic practice, whether it be by a close ally, the Republic of India or the United Arab Emirates.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, my fellow member of the Defence Committee, for giving way. Is not the crux of the matter that if India is so sure about Jagtar’s guilt and thinks it has assembled so much evidence, it should either let him free or—I hope this is what our Foreign Office is saying—bring this to a conclusion and bring the case to a trial? Otherwise, with over a year having gone by, it has not established a case.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

The right hon. Member makes a clear point. Since nearly day one in this case, state authorities in Punjab have been quite open that they believe my constituent to be guilty. They have conducted a trial by media, and they have made it quite clear that they expect him to be found guilty if a trial should ever take place. That clearly undermines the very principle of due process in the Republic of India, which should concern us all.

Yemen

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg]

The right hon. Gentleman has expressed that very well indeed, and I pay tribute to his sterling efforts on this issue. Unlike me, he has visited Yemen during the conflict. I think that what is really important—and I shall return to it in a moment—is for us to enable all the different parties to come together to undertake a peace process. That is surely something on which all of us can agree.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Should not the answer to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) have been that President Hadi’s is the legitimate Government because it is the Government recognised by the United Nations Security Council? Were that not the case, the position would be entirely different, but is that not the clear position, which is being flouted not only by the Houthis but, very deliberately—and I hope that my hon. Friend will come on to this—by the theocracy in Tehran?

[Stephen Twigg]

Clearly, the United Nations Security Council recognises that Government, but I think that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) made a very fair point in assessing the level of support that President Hadi actually has now in Yemen. I think that if we are to secure a meaningful peace process for Yemen, that will be determined on the streets of Yemen, not in the corridors of New York and votes in the Security Council. My right hon. Friend was right in saying—as did the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt)—that the Security Council’s position is to recognise the Hadi Government, but what he said does not contradict the powerful point made by the right hon. Gentleman that the level of popular support for that Government in Yemen is at least open to question, to put it very mildly.

Let me now deal with the position on Hodeidah, which was raised earlier. When the Minister responds, will he tell us what is the British Government’s view of the coalition strategy there? Does he agree with me that in the light of the attempts to restore a peace process, to which I shall return in a moment, the coalition should halt its military offensive in Hodeidah so that peace can be given a chance in Yemen?

The American Congress has taken a strong line on recent events, and I encourage the British Government to reflect on that. Lawmakers in Congress have signed amendments which would provide for greater scrutiny of US arms sales and would make it a condition of ongoing US support for the Saudi coalition that the Secretary of State should certify that the coalition is supporting peace talks, improving humanitarian access and reducing the number of innocent casualties. Todd Young, a Republican senator from Indiana, has said:

“The actions of the Saudis in Yemen undercut our

—American—

“national security interests and our moral values—exacerbating the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.”

May I invite the Minister, when he responds, to agree with Senator Young in that regard?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[John Spellar]

rose—

[Stephen Twigg]

Three Members wish to intervene, and I will give way to them in the order in which I saw them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the role he has played on this issue over a significant period of time, and I absolutely share his view. I know there are different views about this in the House, and we had a fundamental difference of view on this in the Committees on Arms Export Controls in the previous Parliament, but I share his view, and I fear that our approach to this as a country undermines our credibility as a force for good in the control of arms around the world.

[John Spellar]

In my hon. Friend’s considerations in coming to that conclusion, does he give any weight to the tens of thousands of skilled aerospace workers, and their families and their communities, who depend on the military aircraft, let alone the whole aerospace supply chain which is vitally important for our industry? Should we not be thinking about them as well?

[Stephen Twigg]

My right hon. Friend is of course right to say that one of our considerations in having a policy on the defence industries must be the work for those who are in those industries, but we have not only signed up to a set of laws in our own country, in Europe and internationally on arms control. We have taken the lead in international forums, and those laws and rules have very little meaning if we are not prepared to enforce them, and enforce them consistently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He brings to this debate his thoughts and experiences as the Chairman of the Select Committee, and he has served extremely bravely in combat zones in the past.

I am using Hodeida as just one example—

[John Spellar]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Mitchell]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, my neighbour, in just a moment. I just want to finish this point. I am only using Hodeidah as one example of this crackers, crazy strategy whereby the Saudis are, to use my words and the words of the Minister, on a hiding to nothing. They are going to be humiliated. As for the Shia-Sunni divide, as referred to by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, who started this debate so well, the Iranians are scoring a cheap victory and will be laughing up their sleeves, and the Saudis are playing into the Iranians’ hands. That is what I wanted to say about the Saudi position, so I will now give way to the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), who is my constituency neighbour.

[John Spellar]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he address whether the Houthis are using their position to steal the food that is being brought in? They are using food as a weapon by depriving anyone who does not support them and making huge sums of money to finance their vicious rebellion.

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman may well be right. There are no good guys in this appalling conflict. I am certainly not standing up for the Houthis, but he needs to address the military position that I have described, which is why the Saudis are on such a hiding to nothing. All that I will say on the Houthis is that I met President al-Sammad on my visit to Yemen, and it was probably a mistake for the Saudis to kill him in an air attack when he was one of the doves among the Houthis who might have assisted in the negotiations that I was describing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Thank you for granting this emergency debate on Yemen, Mr Speaker, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), the Chair of the International Development Committee, on securing it. I will come to his powerful speech in a minute, but on this day of 9/11, especially at this time of day, we should all pause and pay our respects to the almost 3,000 innocent people killed in the attacks on New York and Washington 17 years ago today, including the 77 British victims. Our thoughts are especially with their families, friends and colleagues, for whom this day always brings such painful memories and to whom we owe a constant duty to fight the scourge of jihadi terrorism wherever it rears its head.

I also acknowledge an anniversary that the events of 2001 have naturally relegated in importance over the past two decades, but one that we should also remember. Forty-five years ago, Salvador Allende, the great reforming, democratically elected socialist leader of Chile, killed himself in the presidential palace in Santiago as the forces of General Pinochet approached to seize power and plunge Chile into 17 dark years of brutal military dictatorship.

In historical terms, this is a dark and painful day, and it is a dark and painful subject that we debate today, but I still thank the Chair of the International Development Committee for raising it, as he has so consistently and insistently. The last time we had an emergency debate on this subject back in November 2017, secured by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), there was great media criticism because only around 30 Members were present to debate what is still accepted as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. There may be slightly more Members in attendance today.

When I look back at debates on Yemen over the two or three years since we began to realise the enormity of this crisis, I see that there have been certain constants. The Chair of the International Development Committee, from whom we have just heard, has of course been a constant voice, insisting that wherever the blame for this conflict lies, and wherever our international alliances preside, the only thing that matters is stopping the violence and allowing the people of Yemen to get the humanitarian relief they need.

There have been other constants over the years: my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is here; the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, who again made a powerful speech today; my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty); my great and esteemed predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn); and many others who I am sure we will hear from today and who have fought the long and often lonely struggle to give the war and humanitarian crisis in Yemen the attention they deserve, and to rightly condemn the Houthi rebels for their atrocities, their use of child soldiers and their firing of missiles into Saudi Arabia, but also to hold the Saudi-led coalition to account for its actions in this war. Those actions include the indiscriminate airstrikes that have killed thousands of innocent men, children and women; the systematic and targeted destruction of Yemen’s agricultural and food infrastructure; and the blockade that has stopped supplies of food, clean water and medicine, jeopardising millions of lives.

For those of us who feel as though we have been hitting our head against a brick wall these past three years, it is easy to feel jaded and to give up hope of ever forcing a change in the British Government’s policy or approach, because it seems as though no Saudi atrocity is too much and no Saudi behaviour cannot be excused so that the Government’s inaction at the United Nations and their lucrative trade in arms can be allowed to continue.

If we are becoming jaded, all we have to do is listen to the families of the victims of this conflict. They remind us all that if we do not continue campaigning for an end to this disastrous conflict and Britain’s support for it, their numbers and their pain will just continue to grow. I will put on record the words of Zaid Tayyib, a father of five boys from Sa’dah city, three of whom—Youssef, Ahmed and Ali, aged 14, 11 and nine—went on a school bus trip together a month ago, along with dozens of schoolmates.

Mr Tayyib was in the same street as the bus as it returned from the trip, which was when the Saudi missile struck. He rushed to the scene, despite his own pain and shock, to try to help the survivors. When he turned over the body of one young boy, with his blue UNICEF rucksack still on his back, he saw that it was his own 11-year-old little boy, Ahmed. Over the next few hours he discovered his two other children on the bus had also been killed, and he had to break the news to their mother. The hardest news to tell her, he said, was about their nine-year-old boy, little Ali. When Mr Tayyib finally discovered Ali’s body, he brought him home and his mother held him like any mother would hold a young child who had just come home from a trip. But with Ali she kept holding on to his lifeless body because she simply could not let him go.

That is the war we are supporting. That is the coalition we are arming. That is the handiwork of the Saudi crown prince, over whom this Government fawned so desperately when they welcomed him here in March.

When Mr Tayyib was asked what he thought of the international reaction to the death of his three sons and of the 37 other children killed in that Saudi airstrike, he expressed his shock at the silence of the international community with these poignant words: “It’s as if it was livestock that was targeted, as if it wasn’t children that were targeted, as if it wasn’t people who were killed.”

We owe it to Mr Tayyib, we owe it to his wife, and we owe it to the sons they have lost, and to the thousands of other innocent children who have been killed in this conflict, not to stay silent but to raise our voices ever louder in demanding again the same three things that the Opposition have consistently demanded for the past three years: first, an independent UN-led investigation of all allegations of war crimes in this conflict; secondly, the suspension of UK arms sales for use in this conflict until the investigation is complete; and thirdly, for the UK Government, at long last, to do their job as the penholder on Yemen at the UN Security Council and bring forward a new resolution obliging all sides to respect a ceasefire to allow peace talks and open access for humanitarian relief.

[John Spellar]

Many of my right hon. Friend’s points are extremely valid, and the Government should be undertaking them, but on shutting off plane sales to Saudi Arabia is she prepared, as her next visit, to go to the north-west to say to workers there, their wives and their families that we should shut their factories and destroy their communities? Is she prepared to do that? Because that is the logical consequence of what she proposes.

[Emily Thornberry]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that very serious and very important point. I will put it as I have put it to many of those who work in these factories: no one who makes arms in this country wants those arms to be sold in contravention of national law and international law.

I appreciate that there has been a court case, and I appreciate that there is an appeal. I watched the court case carefully, and I feel that, from those parts of the trial held in open court, there is an overwhelming case that we should no longer be selling arms to Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, half the case was held in secret court, in which we do not know what happened, so we do not know why the court came to its decision, which frankly, raises a completely different issue about the accountability of secret courts.

Ultimately, no one wants to do anything outside the law, and it is important for our arms industry that sales are done within the law. I know those workers understand that. I do not stand in the way of our arms industry; I stand in the way of our arms industry selling weapons illegally around the world. Frankly, I do not want our bombs and our planes to be responsible for this, and I am quite sure my right hon. Friend does not, either.