Jagtar Singh Johal

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on all the work that he has done on behalf of his constituent, and, indeed, his constituents. Plenty of constituents in Glasgow North are regularly in contact with me about this issue—not just people who worship at the Guru Nanak Sikh Temple in Otago Street, but members of the Amnesty groups and the wider community. They understand that Jagtar has been arbitrarily detained. The United Nations understands that that is what has happened to him. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must recognise that and that they have to call for fair due process and, ultimately, for Jagtar’s release?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We are at the point now where that needs to be vocalised on the Floor of the House. It is one thing to say it in private, but it does need to be vocalised by the Minister.

The United Kingdom Government are, of course, not the only relevant party: the Government of the Republic of India, their judiciary and their police forces are the ones who continue to hold my constituent in a fashion that is consistent with arbitrary detention—

Iran

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and everyone who has already spoken so powerfully today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate, which is perhaps slightly overdue, as it gives us the opportunity to show our solidarity with protestors in Iran and debate the various responses that are open to the UK Government.

Constituents in Glasgow North are extremely passionate about global human rights. The constituency has the distinction of having not one but two very active Amnesty International groups—the west end and the daytime groups. I hear regularly from constituents about many different places around the world where human rights are threatened or undermined and many have been in touch recently about the situation in Iran. The hon. Member for Harrow East, in opening the debate, mentioned the two e-petitions. More than 130 signatures to those petitions from residents in Glasgow North have been recorded on Parliament’s e-petition site. I have heard first-hand testimony from constituents who are from Iran and still have family there, as many others have mentioned. Such testimony about the reality of the oppression on the ground and the protesters’ determination to bring about change is both distressing and inspiring.

As we have heard from other Members, it is difficult to overstate the brutality of the regime in Iran in response to the protests. The story of Dr Aida Rostami is a particularly shocking example. She was treating protesters in the western districts of Tehran—not necessarily protesting herself but delivering first aid and medical care to people injured by security forces during the demonstrations. On 12 December, she disappeared from the hospital where she worked. The next day, her dead body was returned to her family showing signs of torture. The Iranian authorities may claim otherwise, but her family, friends and international experts believe that she was murdered. The principle of medical neutrality—the right of those in battle to receive medical attention and the right of medics to deliver that safely—is protected by the Geneva convention. In other words, the murder of medics who are treating people injured in times of armed conflict and civil unrest is a war crime.

In the face of such brutal repression, the protests continue. Every day since the death in custody of Mahsa Amini on 16 September, people in Iran, led by women and girls, have taken to the streets in support of “Woman, Life, Freedom”—"Zan, Zendegi, Azadi”. The protests are not just about compulsory wearing of the hijab, but a collective cry from the heart for fundamental change to how Iran is governed and how its citizens are allowed to live their lives.

The solidarity of this House and of our constituents with the demonstrators is not in doubt. The need for change in Iran is beyond dispute. The question is: what can we, and the UK Government on our behalf, do to support the cause? The call for the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has already been made incredibly powerfully. Some of my constituents, particularly those from Iran, have been calling for that for years, and will welcome the now clear support from all sides of the House. Of course the Government have to exercise careful judgment, for the reasons discussed, but that step has already been taken by the United States.

The European Union has also sanctioned Iranian state broadcasters. The UK Government could do likewise. As others have said, they could also ensure that the BBC’s Persian service is adequately funded to continue its radio broadcasts so that everyone in the area can hear independent, impartial coverage of what is happening. They must also make sure that nobody associated with the Iranian regime or linked with the atrocities carried out there is able to visit or live in the UK with impunity. There was an earlier point of order about the golden visa regime. The Government must look carefully at golden visas awarded to Iranians with links to the regime, and question what Magnitsky sanctions can be imposed where appropriate.

Are the Government aware of concerns expressed by Iran International about threats to its UK-based journalists, and the concerns of Justice for Iran regarding the behaviour of former Iranian officials who now live in the UK? The Government must put the strongest diplomatic pressure possible on the Iranian regime to halt the execution of protesters and respect the human rights of those charged with or on trial for a capital offence. Amnesty International and other hon. Members have called for UK officials in Iran, including the ambassador, to attend trials and visit prisons to ensure that at least some kind of due process is taking place. I hope we will hear an update from the Government on the progress of the UN fact-finding mission in the country. I echo the points made about the treatment of UK-Iranian dual nationals in the country, especially Mr Akbari.

Finally, how are the Government working with their international allies both to monitor and disrupt the increasing military co-operation and exchange between Iran and Russia? This is a point of considerable concern for constituents I have heard from. The Defence Secretary himself told us in December of Russian equipment being exchanged for Iranian drones, which are then put to use against the people of Ukraine. As we heard so powerfully from others, the Iranian regime’s brutality is clearly not necessarily restricted to its own borders. The UK Government must take action on all those points.

The whole world saw the bravery of the Iranian football team refusing to sing the national anthem at their opening World cup game. Now is the time for the UK Government, their international allies and all of us who believe in freedom and democracy to be brave, too, and not just speak of solidarity but take action in solidarity with the men, women, boys and girls uniting behind women, life and freedom in Iran.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s championing of the Chagossian community in his constituency. He will recognise that there is a diversity of views in the various Chagossian communities in Mauritius, the UK and the Seychelles. We will of course take those views seriously, but the negotiations are between the UK and Mauritius. We will ensure that we continue to engage with those communities through this negotiating process.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

Do the UK Government now accept the finding of the International Court of Justice that the process of the decolonisation of Mauritius was not lawfully completed in 1968 and that the UK’s continued administration of the Chagos archipelago constitutes a wrongful act?

[James Cleverly]

The UK has expressed regret about the manner in which the Chagossians were removed in the late 1960s and the 1970s, but we are working constructively with the Mauritius Government and, as I say, one of the strong principles that underpins the negotiation is the reiteration that the UK and US defence facility on Diego Garcia will continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend, who speaks with great passion and authority on this issue, knows that it is a long-standing Government policy that we do not speculate on future proscriptions. He will know that we have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, and we have brought specific actions against individuals who we know to be involved either with arms distributions or violations of international humanitarian law.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

T4.   Does the Foreign Secretary or the Minister for Development believe that there should be an upper limit on the amount of the aid budget that can be spent in the UK?

[Mr Mitchell]

All British aid must be spent in accordance with the OECD Development Assistance Committee rules governing its spending. The hon. Member is talking about the expenditure on the first year of a refugee’s time in the United Kingdom, and that is absolutely legitimate expenditure under the official development assistance rules.

International Human Rights Day

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); not many people get to do that in this place, but it is my privilege today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on securing such an important and valuable debate, and on her long-standing commitment to these issues. I will probably end up echoing much of what others have already said, but that demonstrates the cross-party consensus that exists on these issues, and the importance of the Government paying attention to them. On the issue of ministerial corrections and the exchange on Saudi Arabia, the Procedure Committee is currently looking into how the record is corrected appropriately. We will make a point of drawing that particular correction to the attention of the inquiry.

As others have said, Saturday marks Human Rights Day and the beginning of a year of activism and activity, culminating in the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights on 10 December 2023. The fundamental human rights set out in that declaration are just that: fundamental and intrinsic to every single human being. As we have heard throughout the debate, rights can be—and all too often are—denied, suppressed or not exercised. But they still exist at a fundamental level. Those rights belong to all of us, individually and collectively. In some senses, when they are denied to one person or one group of people, we are all diminished. We all have a responsibility to seek justice and restoration of those rights for all.

This issue is of huge concern to constituents in Glasgow North. I am proud to represent one of the biggest and most active Amnesty International groups in the country, based in Glasgow’s west end. I congratulate the group on its ongoing work. Many of those constituents will be taking part in Amnesty’s “Write for Rights” campaign at this time of year. I have vivid memories of first attending an Amnesty talk as a young person. It was about prisoners of conscience and the significant impact that writing to detained people and Governments to support their freedom can have. In some ways, it is a real privilege to be able to put those points directly to the UK Government years later.

I echo the cases highlighted by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), particularly Aleksandra Skochilenko in Russia and Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara in Cuba. We heard about both of those significant cases in the Jubilee Room earlier this week. I echo the calls of my constituents and other Members here today for the UK Government to make representations to their counterparts in those countries, asking for justice and the release of those prisoners. Equally, I echo calls for efforts to secure the return of UK nationals arbitrarily detained abroad, including Morad Tahbaz and Mehran Raoof in Iran, Alaa Abd El-Fattah in Egypt and Jagtar Singh Johal in India.

Another regular topic in my constituency inbox is the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Yesterday, some of us had the opportunity to witness some of the tragic acts of settler violence that take place there on a daily basis, using virtual reality technology brought to a room in Portcullis House by Yachad and B’Tselem, Both organisations should be congratulated for their efforts to work across communities in the Holy Land to bring about a peaceful political resolution to the conflict. It is interesting how this technology is being used to help us understand human rights abuses around the world. A few weeks ago, I, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and no doubt many others also used it to better understand the experience of the Yazidis, who the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke about so powerfully.

I also hear from constituents, including some with direct personal experience, about the importance of supporting campaigners who support women, life and freedom in Iran. The decision of the Iranian regime to execute dozens or more protesters stands in contrast to the inspiring and determined action of the ordinary citizens standing up against brutality and dictatorship. I have already written to the Foreign Secretary about these matters on behalf of my constituents, but perhaps the Minister could say a bit more about how the Government are continuing to support the UN Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission on human rights violations in Iran, and what steps they are taking to ensure that people associated with the actions of the Iranian regime here in the UK are not afforded any kind of sanctuary, protection or impunity.

The Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), mentioned the exhibition in Upper Waiting Hall that has drawn attention this week to the journalists and activists in Eritrea who were rounded up by their country’s regime in 2001 and have never been heard from since. We were fortunate to welcome the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Eritrea, Dr Mohamed Abdelsalam Babiker, to the Jubilee Room earlier this week and to hear directly from him about the ongoing efforts to document the terrible human rights abuses in Eritrea and the steps being taken to hold that Government to account. Eritreans make up one of the largest populations of refugees in this country—indeed, that is the case in many countries—because their claims to asylum are so clear and so many of them have to flee for their lives.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

A recent Westminster Hall debate focused on Ethiopia, particularly the situation in Tigray. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to keep the pressure up on the Ethiopian Government to ensure that human rights observers from the United Nations Human Rights Council have absolutely unfettered access to all parts of the country?

[Patrick Grady]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Sadly, many of those observers do not have the access they require and to which they have a right under an international mandate.

In Scotland, we welcome refugees and are proud to have them in our communities, but people should not have to flee oppression and brutality, so more must be done to call out the practices of the Eritrean regime and, indeed, other regimes in that part of the world. On top of all that, the horn of Africa in East Africa is undergoing a severe food crisis. Right now, more than 19 million people are directly affected by chronic food shortages, but the right to adequate food, water, sanitation and clothing is declared under article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights. Several of us have been to see Save the Children today, its Christmas jumper day, on which it is raising awareness of food insecurity overseas and, sadly, increasingly in the United Kingdom. Also, as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) has said, the UK Government’s massive cuts to the aid budget are sadly making it much more difficult to respond adequately to the food crisis in the horn of Africa, in a way that might have been possible in the past.

As others have said, there is some irony in the fact that we are using these debates to ask the UK Government to take action on human rights abuses around the world at a time when the legal framework on human rights in this country seems to be under threat. I have heard from a significant number of constituents who are deeply concerned about the so-called Bill of Rights, which is technically before this House, although there is no clear timetable for Second Reading or any further stages. The Bill as published would diminish the rights of those seeking sanctuary here in the UK. It would remove obligations on some public authorities to respect existing rights and make it much more difficult to seek recourse from the courts when rights are threatened. The best thing the Government could do with this Bill is bin it, leave it in the legislative doldrums and let it disappear at the end of the Session.

Constituents are also concerned that there might be attempts to change provisions and protections for certain minority groups in the Equality Act 2010, despite there being no particularly clear need for that to happen. I share the concerns about the ever-growing drumbeat on the Tory Back Benches, and even within the Cabinet, for withdrawal from the European convention on human rights, as the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said. Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, that may well have an impact on the ability of the devolved legislatures and Governments to exercise their statutory rights and obligations under the terms of their founding Acts. That leads me to the same question that the right hon. Member for Islington North asked: how can such actions by the UK Government lend them any kind of international credibility when they are attempting to speak out against human rights abuses elsewhere in the world?

If the Government really want to legislate in the area of human rights, perhaps they could consider proposals for a new UK supply chain regulation: a business, human rights and environment Act that would require companies to take reasonable measures to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for the actual and potential impacts of their activities on people and the environment. In Brazil, Colombia, which the hon. Member for Rhondda referred to, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and many other resource and mineral-rich countries, too many people are forced to work in almost slave-like conditions or are having their land seized for mining and monocropping to provide consumer goods for those of us who already live in comfort and plenty.

As other Members have said, many of the issues that we have discussed today are the focus of a range of all-party parliamentary groups, particularly the all-party parliamentary human rights group. Unlike some APPGs, these are often supported by volunteers, charitable groups and Members’ staff, who are effectively donating their time on a pro bono basis. They provide valuable information for debates such as this, and for those of us who are active members. We thank them sincerely for their work. They help us to hold the Government to account and to make sure, as I hope the Minister will confirm, that the Government will remain committed to protecting and enhancing fundamental human rights, both around the world and here at home.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I agree with my hon. Friend; of course, it is a combination of both factors, with the Chinese trying to extend the tentacles of their reach throughout the whole region in order to put smaller countries under pressure.

The Chinese control Mauritius through their belt and road policy, as they do so many other small nations around the world. Guess which is the first African nation that received a free trade agreement with China? Mauritius. Guess which country—a tiny island, with a small economy—has received over $1 billion in investment from China over the last few years? Mauritius. The moment that we give Mauritius some of the outer islands, of which there are 58, it will lease one or some of them to the Chinese almost instantaneously. We do not know what conversations are taking place between Beijing and Port Louis, but we cannot discount what the financial statistics say about Chinese control of Mauritius.

Certain politicians and colleagues have made a nuanced argument to me: “Do not rock the boat; these are very delicate negotiations. We have to maintain our control over Diego Garcia. If that means giving away some of the other islands and coming to a compromise, so be it.” No. If the mantra is to keep Diego Garcia while giving some of the other islands away, imagine what would happen to the viability and sustainability of UK and American bases on Diego Garcia. It would be absolutely intolerable for us. I have visited our military bases on Diego Garcia. I have spent days meeting with American officials on the islands; they briefed me and showed me around the naval vessels and installations. Having those huge military bases with the Chinese just a stone’s throw away from us on the other islands would be completely unacceptable.

I visited Peros Banhos, one of the outer islands, after sailing overnight from Diego Garcia, which is where the military base is. Islanders on Peros Banhos were expelled in 1970 because the island was perceived to be too close to our military base. The Chinese have shown form. They are the world experts on turning atolls into military installations. There is an argument that Peros Banhos and the other islands are too small, too insignificant and too far below sea level for them to be viable. Well, the Chinese have proved that concept completely wrong; they have created installations successfully in the South China sea.

There has been an appalling injustice, which we must now right. Rather than accommodating the spurious demands of Mauritius, we need to consult the indigenous people living in Britain, Mauritius, the Maldives and the Seychelles. I want to read a statement from Frankie Bontemps, who is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley. He is an NHS worker at the hospital in Crawley, and is from the Chagos islands. I had a long and somewhat emotional telephone conversation with him last night. He is a tremendous man, whom I look forward to meeting in the House of Commons. He writes:

“I am a founding member of Chagossian Voices. I don’t agree that islands should go to Mauritius. Chagossians have never been consulted at any stage and Chagossians were never represented, either at the International Court or before. Chagossians have been used by the Mauritian government at ICJ to get sympathy by providing an account of suffering…Then they were dismissed…as ‘Mauritians of Chagossian origin’. They have erased our identity.”

That is the allegation: “they have erased our identity”. The statement goes on:

“The Mauritian Government was also complicit in the exile of Chagossians and the ‘sale’ of the islands in 1965.”

That is a fascinating concept. Mauritius took £3 million of our taxpayers’ money in 1965. Think for a moment how much £3 million was in 1965. It took our money as final settlement for the islands. It was complicit in helping the removal of the Chagossians from Diego Garcia and the other islands, and now, 60 years on, it wants to overturn that agreement and take away from us islands that are more than 2,000 km away from it.

Mr Bontemps goes on to say:

“Chagossians do not feel they are Mauritians and Chagossians feel they are still being exploited by the Mauritian government. Mauritius wants sovereignty of the islands for financial gain and I do not think there will be resettlement of Chagossians”

under Mauritian rule. He goes on to say this, which is very evocative, powerful and emotional:

“It is wrong to describe Chagossians as Mauritians. Their origins are as slaves from Africa and Madagascar. The Chagossians have been there for 5 or 6 generations with their own language and culture, food and music traditions. It is a remote and unique culture different to Mauritius…The judgment of Lord Justice Laws & Mr. Justice Gibbs in November 2000 said Chagossians are the ‘belongers’ on the islands. As ‘belongers’ Chagossians should be their own deciders of their futures, not the Mauritian Government. Self-determination should have been for the Chagossians, not for Mauritians who have their own island more than 2,000 km away. So far only UK and Mauritius have been consulted. Chagossians have never been allowed to participate in decisions about their future, from exile until now. Chagossians should now be asked to decide the future of the islands. Chagossians should be around the table. It’s our human right.”

Mr Bontemps then goes on to say that he has written a letter to the Foreign Secretary asking for those assurances, dated 11 November 2022, and he has not as yet received a reply.

I would like to thank Rob Crilly, a reporter from The Daily Mail USA edition, who has written a story about this debate. As a result of it, I was contacted this week by Republican Congressman Mike Waltz, a ranking member of the military readiness sub-committee of the Congress of the United States of America. He is now likely to become chairman of that powerful and important group, as the Republicans recently won the congressional elections. US bases are under its jurisdiction. I had a long, fruitful discussion with Congressman Waltz’s team and highlighted my concerns about the negotiations that our Government have entered into with Mauritius. I briefed them about this debate, and they are extremely concerned by the news. They are worried about the ramifications for them and what will happen to their naval base if they have to share the archipelago with the Chinese.

Even if we retain Diego Garcia, the other islands will be up for lease to the Chinese. We have seen what Mauritius is doing with Agaléga—

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

In a second.

Agaléga is one of the Mauritian islands, which it has leased to the Indians. The indigenous population of that atoll has been removed and massive destruction has taken place on it to accommodate an Indian military base, so the Mauritians have form. They understand the importance of the Indian ocean and how geographically significant it is. Mauritius is in the market to gain as many of these atolls as possible and ultimately to sell them to the Indians, the Chinese or whoever is the highest bidder. That is in stark contrast to the United Kingdom, which is seeking to protect the 58 islands. A massive conservation area twice the size of the United Kingdom has been created around the islands, which is protecting marine and wildlife. There is no fishing and no oil drilling—nothing takes place. Anybody interested in what Mauritius is doing with these atolls should google that information. Mauritius wants the islands to sell them to make money. Ultimately, if we allow it to do that, it will facilitate the militarisation of the Indian ocean.

[Patrick Grady]

rose—

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I am concluding my arguments—I will give way in a second—but what I would like to say is this. We have beaten the French to secure participation in AUKUS, which is one of the most important miliary agreements signed in the Government’s tenure in office, and we are re-entering the Indian ocean and the Pacific through our arrangement with the Americans and the Australians. AUKUS is essential.

It was Lee Kuan Yew who remonstrated with the United Kingdom when we left Singapore in 1971. He understood the ramifications for that region were the United Kingdom to abandon her bases. In that period of retrenchment and lacking in self-confidence that we went through in the early ’70s, we left all those areas, and Lee Kuan Yew and others foresaw the difficulties that would ensue. Finally, we have the confidence to re-enter the Indian ocean and the Pacific. The AUKUS military agreement is essential, in conjunction with our membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—the far east trading bloc—which we are entering next year.

The islands are essential for our geopolitical strategy of supporting allies in the Indian ocean and the Pacific from growing Chinese belligerence. I speak as the only Member of Parliament to have been born in a communist country and the only British Member of Parliament who has lived under communist oppression and tyranny, so I know what the communists are capable of and I know how the Chinese communist Government threaten and bully many smaller countries in the region. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said, it would be madness to allow the Chinese to enter the Indian ocean through its puppet client state of Mauritius.

I hope that the Chagossians following the debate across the United Kingdom, as well as those in Mauritius and the Seychelles, listen to us and hear the strength of feeling that many hon. Members have, demonstrating that we, as a former imperial power, recognise the mistakes we have made and that, in a new modern era, we will put the concepts of integrity and self-determination at the forefront. If any of the islands is to be abandoned, that can be done legitimately only through the acceptance of the Chagossian people, and the fascinating thing is that I do not think that that is there. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) and will stop shortly so that he can speak. However, in all my discussions with the Chagossians, I hear that they are up for this—they are up for remaining British. We can convince them to vote to remain British in a referendum. Will the Minister tell us why we are negotiating with the Mauritius Government before the Chagossians have been consulted?

The last thing I will say—I will use parliamentary privilege for the first time in 17 years—is that British citizens, who I will not name, are actively conspiring to aid and abet Mauritius to take these islands from the United Kingdom. I will not begin to tell hon. Members what I think of those individuals, but I very much hope that they will be thwarted in their actions.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

I am not entirely sure where to begin. I suppose I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), and I welcome his interest in this issue. Many of us in the Chamber are members of the Chagos islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party parliamentary group and have spoken frequently in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber on the question of sovereignty and the rights of the islanders and their descendants. I do not recall ever seeing the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham at those APPG meetings. I have not gone through the minutes of all 30 meetings that have taken place since I joined in 2016, so perhaps I missed him.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Can I put on the record that I have attended some of those meetings? I suspect that he is getting wrong information. We can show him accounts of me attending those meetings.

[Patrick Grady]

I am happy to stand corrected on that. As far as I could tell from a search of Hansard, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the British Indian Ocean Territory once in his career in this place, which was last year in a debate on AUKUS. His peroration probably gave us a sense of the real priorities behind this debate.

At base level, I do not disagree. The Chagossian community should absolutely be involved and consulted in the negotiations on the future of the islands—many of us who have been involved in the all-party group have been campaigning on that for many years. I say “good luck” to him getting the United Kingdom Government to recognise the sovereignty of a people and that their democratic future should be decided in a referendum on the future of their territory, because the UK Government are very clearly against that kind of democratic process. It is important that we find a way to make sure that the community are properly consulted.

I suspect that the issue will divert away from the specific question of sovereignty and to their rights and the future of their connection with the islands themselves. As the hon. Member recognises, the community is quite widely dispersed because of the historical actions of the United Kingdom Government. It is incredibly diverse as well, and different groups will have different views on exactly what a resolution should look like.

A mechanism that can include the diaspora would be welcome. It might be impossible, as he alluded to, but there is no reason that the Governments that represent them cannot put their interests at the forefront when they are at the table. He is right that there is a Chagossian community represented by the United Kingdom Government. There is a Chagossian community represented by the Government of Mauritius and a Chagossian community represented by the Government of the Seychelles, and there will be smaller diasporas elsewhere in the world. That is what parliamentary democracies are for and what democratic representation is for. That is what many of us would want to see achieved.

Human Rights Watch, which I am sure is an organisation that the hon. Gentleman engages with on a regular basis, has called for the inclusion of community voices, saying:

“Righting the half century of wrongs to the Chagossian people means full reparations – their right to return in dignity and prosperity; full compensation for the harm they have suffered; and guarantees that such abuses never happen again.”

That is where we ought to try to find some kind of consensus.

I come from a political tradition where sovereignty lies with the people; not with a Crown, not with a Parliament and certainly not with a Government. In reality, sovereignty always ultimately lies with the people. People have the fundamental human rights to freedom of speech, thought and assembly. Those are manifested in the right to live under the rule of law. Those rights can be denied, as they have been in the case of the Chagossians, but they cannot be taken away. That is why among all the negotiations are questions about the future of the base on Diego Garcia, which, incidentally—I wanted to ask about this in an intervention— probably took quite a lot of concrete to establish.

I am not sure if I completely understood the hon. Member’s argument. It appeared to be that in the 1960s it was okay for the United Kingdom to buy an island, militarise the south Indian ocean, pour lots of concrete on Diego Garcia and forcibly displace a population in doing so, but now it would be completely wrong for any other Government to consider such course of action.

The notion that we should tell other countries to do what we say and not what we do is not always the most conducive to building world peace and stability. In among all those questions, we have to put the interests of the community first. We as Members have a duty to scrutinise the Government and speak out on behalf of our constituents, whether they are members of the Chagossian community or—like those who contact me—committed human rights activists who believe that everyone in the world should enjoy the rights we too often take for granted here in the United Kingdom. I hope the Government’s movements on this issue will at last lead to some kind of equitable status that resolves the question of sovereignty in international law, but more importantly, achieves justice at last for the people of the Chagos islands.

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

I intend to start Front-Bench speeches at 3.30 pm, so I ask Members to keep their comments to around four minutes. I call Henry Smith.

Persecution of Christians

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

I was trying to do the maths in my head, Dame Maria, so you have helped me out. I congratulate the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate, which is becoming something of an annual tie-in with the Red Wednesday commemorations. That is extremely fitting and a real tribute to their work. It is so important to so many of our constituents that we speak up for people who are being denied their right to freedom of religion or belief all around the world, regardless of whether they are Christian, are practising any other belief, or are of no belief.

As the title of the debate suggests, we are focusing on Christians. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, Christians remain one of the most persecuted—in fact, probably the most persecuted and discriminated against—religious group in the world. Perhaps that is to some extent because Christians remain the largest community group in the world, but the statistics demonstrate the significance of their persecution. It is worth bearing in mind, though, that the vast majority of human beings in the world adhere to some kind of religion and profess a belief in a creator god. The majority of them believe in the God revealed to the patriarch Abraham, and most believe in the same God revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. On a global scale, religion is therefore not a minority sport, and neither is Christianity.

I pay tribute to organisations, such as Open Doors, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Aid to the Church in Need, that do so much work to draw attention to these issues. Red Wednesday is a way for everybody to become more aware of the challenges faced by Christians and others who are persecuted for their religious beliefs.

I will briefly echo some of what has been said about specific countries. Nigeria is seventh on the Open Doors 2022 world watch list of the 50 countries where it is most difficult to live as a Christian, but the statistics show that if it were only measuring violence, Nigeria would be at the top of the list, and we have heard some very powerful and, frankly, horrific testimony from the hon. Members for Strangford and for Congleton. The call to bring to justice those responsible for genocidal attacks, such as the Pentecost Sunday 2022 massacre in Nigeria, is the focus of Aid to the Church in Need’s petition this year, and I hope that there are things the Government can do and that they will listen to the calls that have been made—for example, to address the question of designating Nigeria as a country of concern.

The Christian community in Iran is not always spoken of, but it is a very real and persecuted minority. The Open Doors world watch list says:

“It is risky for Christians, especially converts, to express their faith publicly (such as in blogs or on social media) since the internet is monitored and this can be used as evidence prior to an arrest.”

When the Prime Minister gave his statement on the G20 earlier today, I asked him what support the UK, the G20 and the global community more widely are offering to everyone in Iran who is now campaigning for democracy and freedom. Perhaps the Minister can address some of that as well.

Then there is the situation in China, where members of many religious minorities—not least the Uyghur Muslims—face persecution on a daily basis, but I want to draw particular attention to the situation of Cardinal Joseph Zen, who is one of Asia’s highest-ranking Catholic clerics. In May, he and fellow campaigners were arrested in Hong Kong for what the Government said was collusion with foreign forces, because they were trustees of a humanitarian relief fund. Together with the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), several of us raised our concerns with the Government in early-day motion 36 on 12 May, in which we agreed with Human Rights Watch’s comments that the arrest of the 90-year-old Cardinal for peaceful activities was a shocking new low for the Hong Kong Administration, and that it illustrates the city’s freefall in human rights over the past couple of years.

The Government must continue to work to tackle those issues in different countries around the world, as they have committed to. They also have to ensure that they are doing what they can on a domestic level to protect freedom of religion and belief and promote tolerance at home. In my part of world, Glasgow and the west of Scotland, we are not immune to religious intolerance. Sectarianism is still a real challenge. The root of it is, ironically, a divide between different Christian denominations; the golden rule of that religion is to “love one another as you love yourself”.

I want to pay tribute to the late Archbishop Mario Conti, the emeritus Archbishop of Glasgow, because among his many achievements was a renewed dedication to ecumenical and interfaith dialogue. Just yesterday, the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland signed the St Margaret declaration, a statement of ecumenical friendship. It was signed by the moderator of the Church of Scotland and the Archbishop of Edinburgh in the presence of the Princess Royal at Dunfermline Abbey. That is a very good example of what is possible from dialogue and the search for common ground. Hopefully it is the kind of thing that elsewhere in the world can learn from.

Many people who come to the United Kingdom seeking asylum do so because of religious persecution, whether they are Christian or otherwise. The language demonising people arriving on these shores in small boats in extremely unhelpful, and not a way to promote tolerance. The Government need to bear that in mind. I am still aware of ongoing challenges for very simple things, such as access to visas for supply ministers and religious leaders when they want to come to the United Kingdom in the summer to supply for Christian parishes or other faith communities. None of that necessarily speaks to a welcoming attitude.

The Government have to take all of that into account, and, if they are going to continue to cut the aid budget, they have to explain how they are going to make that work smarter and harder, so that progress can be continued in those areas, particularly towards the Truro report recommendations, as the hon. Member for Congleton said. She has been the Prime Minister’s envoy under three Prime Ministers, which shows how seriously she takes her role. We all support her in taking that role seriously, and I hope the Government will continue to do so too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

As I have already highlighted, Israel is one of our closest partners and we will continue to have a close working relationship with the new Government. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage, ahead of the Government’s formation.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

What does the Minister for Development think are the biggest challenges to the effective use of the aid budget: the fact that it is facing further cuts, the fact that so much of it is being double counted against Defence expenditure or the fact that, as the Chair of the Select Committee said, it is being increasingly spent in the UK?

[Mr Mitchell]

The aim of the international development budget, every penny of which is spent in Britain’s national interest, is to prevent conflict and to build prosperous societies. That is the aim, and that is what we seek to do with every penny we spend. All that expenditure is completely in the interests of the British taxpayer.

Global Food Security

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. It is a rare experience to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), rather than him following us. He said that we cannot grow everything in this country, but anyone listening to “Good Morning Scotland” earlier would have heard about the tea plants that have just been harvested on Orkney.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

And in Stirling.

[Patrick Grady]

My hon. Friend says that has also happened in Stirling. That shows that, with a bit of ingenuity —and possibly as the result of a changing climate, which we will come back to—it is surprising what can be harvested when minds are put to it.

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) on securing her first debate in Westminster Hall, and on an incredibly powerful speech. I agree with pretty much every word that she said, which makes it quite difficult to find something new to add to the debate. It is slightly unfortunate that it seems to be the case in Westminster Hall these days that very few Government Back Benchers want to come along, contribute and offer their perspectives. That leaves the Minister with a slightly unenviable task. Perhaps we will hear in due course which portfolio he is going to be addressing—I understand that these are slightly uncertain times.

I welcome the appointment of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) as a Minister of State in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Perhaps it is understandable that he is not right here right now, although it is unfortunate, because I suspect he would have been here to speak from the Back Benches if circumstances allowed. He has been a real champion of global poverty and global justice issues, and that is a rare thing to say about a Conservative Member. Out of all the chaos and everything else that is going on, his presence at Cabinet should be welcomed, but he has a very high standard to live up to now. Those of us who have been in these debates over the years will be looking to see whether development and justice issues really do start to feature more prominently in the Government’s foreign and development strategy.

As both previous speakers have said, food security is a challenge both at home and abroad. People watching this debate might wonder why we are spending time discussing food security around the world when there are people reliant on food banks in our own constituencies —Glasgow North is no exception—but the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington powerfully laid out precisely why that is, why it is a common challenge for humanity as a whole, and the range of steps that need to be taken to tackle the issue.

If food insecurity is a global challenge, it requires a global, as well as a domestic, response. The reality is that it is the same attitudes and philosophies among decision makers, whether at home or abroad, that have left people queuing at food banks here in the UK and queuing for emergency food supplies in famine-hit countries in east Africa. The constituents I hear from in Glasgow North, including supporters of the Borgen Project, who I hope to meet in the next few days, do not want to live in a world where anyone goes hungry, whether that is families down the street or families halfway around the globe—especially not when they know that hunger and food insecurity simply should not and do not need to exist in the modern world.

The reality, though, is, as we have heard, that for too many people, hunger continues to be all too real. We have heard about some specific examples. The food crisis in east Africa is now affecting about 50 million people. In particular, Somalia is on the brink—or perhaps even past the brink—of the official definition of famine. However, food insecurity is not only a crisis or emergency situation, but a daily reality for hundreds of millions of people around the world. As was said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, who introduced the debate, the number, astonishingly and depressingly, seems to be rising. That is particularly frustrating because the solutions are not unknown. In my time as a Member of Parliament, I have had the huge privilege of meeting farmers in Colombia, Zambia, Rwanda and Malawi, and in Wellingborough and Scotland, and they all know perfectly well how to farm sustainably. They know how to grow crops that will feed themselves and their families and produce a surplus for market, if only they have the right kind of support and fair access to markets.

In the middle years of the 2010s, as we came close to the deadline for the millennium development goals and negotiation for the sustainable development goals was under way, a coalition of international development and advocacy organisations, including one that I worked for at the time, ran a campaign called “Enough food for everyone IF”. It made the point clearly that we live in a world that is more than capable of producing sufficient nutrition for the global population—even taking into account the rapid increase in world population numbers in recent years—provided that we get the priorities and processes right, and that is still true today.

First and foremost, as both previous speakers have said, small-scale farmers all over the world have to be at the heart of how we produce and distribute food, and they need support to grow what works best for them—as I said, enough to feed their families and enough surplus to sell at market. Too often, small farmers become reliant on particular crops and particular fertilisers and inputs, or are forced off their land altogether by multinational monocroppers and agribusinesses. That is to slightly over-simplify a whole range of interventions that are also needed, from decent irrigation, to proper education on farming techniques, to fair access to energy and fair access to markets.

We have to change our own food habits here too. Reducing western demand for meat and for out-of-season fruit and vegetables has the potential to change demands for land use around the world. A fantastic report was launched last week by campaigners for the Climate and Ecology Bill, which looks at the paths towards net zero through changing land use and changing global diets to more sustainable, more nutritious, better diets that will make us all healthier, thinner, fitter, more resilient to disease and more resilient to climate change. It is a win-win-win situation, which gets us closer to net zero into the bargain as well.

We have to address the root of the issue, and help people to understand where food comes from. It comes not from packets in supermarkets, but from the ground; we have to put things into the ground to get it in the first place, and we have to work very hard. We have to help more people understand how to cook and prepare cheap, nutritious food for themselves. That is the whole point of a holistic and rights-based approach to development that tackles a range of problems all at once.

The UK Government have to rediscover the leadership that they once showed in these areas and rebuild the consensus. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington said today’s debate was the first Westminster Hall debate she has led; the first Westminster Hall debate I led was in 2015, on the sustainable development goals. In those days, there was a consensus. Members from all parties would speak together and would congratulate the Government on achieving the 0.7% target and on taking a leading role in shaping the SDGs. Now, the SDGs seem to have been forgotten, the aid target has been slashed to 0.5%, and the Government have announced that non-essential aid spending will be frozen. What on earth is non-essential aid? Surely, by definition, all aid is essential. All aid meets a vital need that cannot be met by a domestic Government.

Cutting the aid budget and diverting funding away from long-term sustainable development projects that boost food and other security is ultimately a false economy. Perhaps, for example, fewer people would be tempted to get on small boats and cross the English channel if their countries of origin were not being dried up or flooded by climate change, with their families and communities going hungry as a result. There would certainly be less need to spend vast amounts on emergency intervention and famine relief if there was proper investment in long-term sustainability.

I was thinking back to my days in the international development sector and was reminded of a saying that was attributed to the late Brazilian archbishop, Dom Hélder Câmara:

“When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor are hungry, they call me a communist.”

I think that attitude still pervades in a lot of the world today. Investing in global food security is perhaps the ultimate in preventive spending policy. If people at home or abroad have access to good quality, nutritious, affordable and culturally appropriate food, they will live longer, happier and more successful lives.

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making an important point. Given that malnutrition plays such an important role in a child’s development, that 45% of all deaths of under-fives are due to malnutrition and that we are in the midst of a global food security crisis, does he agree that food security should play an integral part in the Government’s international development strategy?

[Patrick Grady]

Absolutely. The hon. Member makes a valid point. Children will not be able to study at school, either in the UK, in a developing country in sub-Saharan Africa, or in a middle-income country in Latin America, if they are hungry. We recognise that in the UK; we have free school meal programmes and campaign for free school meals. The Government were embarrassed into extending the free school meals programme during the pandemic, and I pay huge tribute to the Scottish Government for their roll-out of free school meals. We recognise that children who have a decent, good quality, nutritious meal will be more able to concentrate at school, and that will improve their education, which improves society as a whole in the long run. It is the ultimate in levelling up, and I hope the Minister might reflect on that.

All development processes are linked, and that is the route to tackle instability. Hungry children are more likely to go out and get radicalised. If they cannot grow their own food, if they cannot get food in the local supermarkets or the local shops and markets, and if they cannot rely on their own Governments to provide them with support, of course people will end up getting radicalised and seek more violent or extreme solutions to the challenges that face them in their country.

I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) that tackling the root causes of poverty is in everybody’s interests; that was pretty much where I was going to conclude. Food security is at the root of a lot of the sustainable development goals, and a range of different international development interventions are aimed at achieving it, because that is the basis for what we all need to survive. It is on that basis that we can all live in a fairer, more peaceful and prosperous world.

Jagtar Singh Johal

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rehman Chishti]

With regard to any specific notes, they will be dealt with in accordance with procedure.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

A great many worshippers at the Guru Nanak Sikh temple on Otago Street in Glasgow North have signed a petition calling for Jaggi’s release. Will the Minister confirm that, if Jagtar was in the UK and the Indian Government wanted to extradite him, that would not be possible because of the threat of a death sentence? So why should he be threatened with capital punishment after being arbitrarily detained on the streets of India?

[Rehman Chishti]

I did not quite hear the hon. Member’s question, so I will take it away and get him a full answer.

Elections Bill

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Clarkson]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and if the Opposition are saying that there is no proof of this, I can tell them now in relation to Rochdale Borough Council’s election this coming month that a member of the Labour council accepted a caution for electoral fraud—he voted twice. So do not spin the line that this does not happen.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Is that not therefore evidence that the current system works? The kind of behaviour the hon. Gentleman’s party colleague, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), has just described is already against the law and will be identified by the polling clerks if someone turns up and tries to vote twice.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Beth Winter]

How do you follow that?

In the week in which the Government intend to prorogue the House, they have voted to carry over three Bills, and this is the fifth Bill they seek to force through following repeated Government defeats in the Lords. The Government really are losing their grip, and I regret that, in response, they are seeking to grab democracy by the throat.

I wish to confine my comments to Lords amendments 22, 23 and 86, which I support. First, let me highlight the extraordinary developments regarding the clauses that affect the work of the Electoral Commission. I express my support for Lords amendments 22 and 23, which removed what were clauses 15 and 16. As others have said, those clauses gave the Government the power to establish a Government strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission, and to place a duty on it to have regard to guidance issued by the Government relating to any of its functions.

3.30 pm

The Bill’s erosion of the commission’s independence gave rise to the letter signed by its chair and all but one of its board members on 21 February this year, which said:

“It is our firm and shared view that the introduction of a Strategy and Policy Statement—enabling the Government to guide the work of the Commission—is inconsistent with the role that an independent electoral commission plays in a healthy democracy. This independence is fundamental to maintaining confidence and legitimacy in our electoral system.”

The letter went on:

“The Commission’s accountability is direct to the UK’s parliaments and should remain so, rather than being subject to government influence.”

For that reason, I urge the Government to think again about the measures.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee also wrote to the Minister only last week to strongly urge the Government to accept the amendments tabled in the House of Lords by Lord Judge that removed clauses 15 and 16, as the Committee recommended in its report. Furthermore, in lieu of any Government support for the amendments, the Committee urged the Government to consider amending the Bill

“to provide that the Electoral Commission is able to depart from the guidance set out in the Statement if it has a statutory duty to do so or if it reasonably believes it is justified in specific circumstances”.

Regrettably, the Government have not done so, which is why I support Lords amendments 22 and 23.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 86, on voter ID, in respect of which I wish to draw some parallels with the Welsh experience. Initially, the Welsh Government withheld legislative consent for the Bill because it affects Welsh elections, because there was an issue with consulting the Welsh Government and because it negatively affected devolved powers. However, the Government have since conceded on some of those concerns and it is welcome that their voter ID proposals will not now apply to Senedd or Welsh council elections.

Although the Senedd has now granted legislative consent, there are still concerns about the Bill in all sorts of respects, but specifically with regard to voter ID. The Welsh Government say that the UK Government plans for voter ID risk making voting harder. Although I welcome the fact that the provisions do not apply to Wales, the inconsistencies between UK parliamentary elections and Welsh elections will cause all sorts of confusion for electors in Wales.

I support Lords amendment 86, which was tabled by Lord Willets and adds an additional list of documents that would be accepted as a form of identification for electors, for the reasons already given. The relevant part of the Bill is discriminatory and will disenfranchise millions of people. We already have extremely low turnouts for elections—the evidence is there—which is why in Wales we are doing the opposite and looking into different methods to encourage people to turn out to vote.

I will conclude with a quote from our Counsel General, Mick Antoniw, because the Welsh Government remain opposed to the Bill, which they believe—Opposition Members share these views—

“is more about voter suppression and enabling foreign funding than enhancing electoral democracy and integrity.”

[Patrick Grady]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), who is essentially right in everything she says.

The scrutiny of this Bill so far has been an absolute travesty of the democracy it is supposed to regulate—the lack of engagement on the Government Benches is testimony to that. The Government changed the scope of the Bill after Second Reading, and crashed it through a Bill Committee, despite the fact that constitutional Bills should be considered in Committee of the whole House. Now the Lords, for their own mysterious reasons, have sent it back, largely with Government corrections and a few meagre concessions. We applaud the Lords on taking a stand on voter ID and the role of the Electoral Commission, but their lordships should have forced the Government into using the Parliament Acts to get the Bill through, given the damage it will do to what remains of Westminster democracy.

The amendments on the right of voters with special needs, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted, to vote independently and in secret are welcome, although they do not go as far as the Royal National Institute of Blind People has called for them to do. Indeed, they do not go as far as the original legislation that this Bill is changing, so once again this is a Bill seeking to solve problems that did not previously exist; it is creating its own problems. There must now be clear guidance on how those provisions are implemented, and careful monitoring and reporting to ensure that those with specific requirements can vote in confidence, in every sense of that word.

It appears from the Minister’s comments that the Government think we should be grateful for the various concessions that respect the devolution settlement and the right of the devolved institutions to manage and regulate their own elections. She said that she had difficulty engaging with Scottish Government Ministers and officials. Well, perhaps if this Government had started the process before the Bill was published, and perhaps if there had been proper prelegislative scrutiny, a lot of that would not have been necessary. The reality, of course, is that the Scottish Parliament has refused to give legislative consent for the Bill as a whole.

What mostly seems to be happening, through these amendments, is the result of a late realisation that all the different electoral cycles in the UK mean that we would never be out of “regulated periods” across the UK, which would make the Tories’ predilection for dark money and AstroTurf campaigning a little trickier. I am not sure that the changes have been made in the best interests of the devolved institutions.

Where the Lords have chosen to take a stand, the Government and this House should be paying close attention. The integrity of the Electoral Commission ought to be protected, and the easiest way to do that is to support the Lords in their amendment removing the two clauses that would allow Government direction and interference. We demonstrated throughout consideration in Committee and on Report the danger of the Government’s plans to allow for ministerial direction of the commission, which is pretty much unprecedented in western democracies. The Government’s amendments in lieu, such as they are, do not go nearly far enough and are themselves a concession that they were trying to overreach with the powers they put into the Bill, so we should agree with the Lords and just take those clauses out entirely.

The House should also support the Lords on their amendment 86. It is disappointing that they did not remove the clauses on photo ID altogether. Again, throughout the Bill’s progress in this House, we have heard how the requirement to present photo ID will depress turnout and make it more difficult for those who are already in marginalised groups to have their voices heard at the ballot box. We heard that repeatedly in evidence and, as we have heard from other Members, that has been heard by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

We hear Members say, “Well, what level of voter fraud is acceptable?” There is no evidence that voter fraud at the moment is as rife as they are pretending.

[Chris Clarkson]

I will ask the hon. Gentleman the question again, since he wants to challenge it: what does he think is an acceptable level of voter fraud?

[Patrick Grady]

The point is that voter fraud, to the extent that it exists—personation, as the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson said—is in single figures. There is no evidence whatsoever that personation is actively affecting the result of any election taking place anywhere across the country.

[Chris Clarkson]

Even if we accept the premise that it is in single digits, is that acceptable?

[Patrick Grady]

Of course it is not acceptable, which is why it should be punished to the full extent of the law, which it is. We have heard several times in this debate that if someone votes twice, they have broken the law and they go to jail. That does happen, as we have heard—

[Chris Clarkson]

rose—

[Patrick Grady]

I think the ping-pong is supposed to be between this place and the upper House, rather than across the Floor of the Chamber, but I will give way.

[Chris Clarkson]

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that some crimes go undetected?

[Patrick Grady]

I think we are getting slightly philosophical here. The reality is that when voter fraud/personation is detected, it is punished to the full extent of the law. We heard in evidence that it is an incredibly inefficient way to swing the outcome of an election. As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) said, people who want to swing the outcome of an election can do so in far more effective ways that are not tackled by the Bill, starting with the kind of postal vote fraud we have heard described. All that this little ping-pong exchange has done is serve to demonstrate that this is, as others have said, a solution in search of a problem.

The fact that this is ideologically motivated, for the Government’s own reasons, is demonstrated by their unwillingness even to accept the relevant Lords amendment, such as it is. One of the counter-arguments we heard from Government Members was about other circumstances in which ID needs to be presented—for example, when collecting a parcel at the post office. Lords amendment 86 extends acceptable forms of ID for voting to include the kind of ID that would be acceptable in collecting a parcel at a post office counter, so, on the basis of that argument, I am not entirely sure why that is not acceptable to the Government.

The Order Paper notes under the listing of this business that the Scottish Parliament has refused legislative consent for the Bill. Once again the Government are ignoring the Sewel convention and showing their disregard for the devolution settlement. Constituents in Glasgow North have written to me in large numbers opposing this Bill. All of this, alongside the Government’s refusal to accept Lords amendments 22, 23 and 86, simply demonstrates the growing divergence between politics in this place and the direction of travel in Scotland.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

I thought that we also learned in Committee that the voter ID proposals would actually make us a more European country, in that they introduce things that we see in European voting systems. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with this divergence, and would have thought he would welcome it if he wants Scotland to be at the heart of Europe.

[Patrick Grady]

I am delighted by the hon. Gentleman’s conversion to the cause of European democracy and alignment. The simple answer is that Scotland has one of the widest, most open and transparent franchises that has ever existed in western democracies. It includes 16 and 17-year-olds, asylum seekers—people who have made their home here—and people who are serving certain types of prison sentence, because we want to rehabilitate everyone and bring them back into the democratic fold. That is the franchise that will deliver independence for Scotland. Unlike the UK-wide franchise—[Interruption.] Conservative Members seem to find this highly amusing. They can laugh all they want once Scotland has voted for independence in the next couple of years, because that is the reality; it is not far away now, and it will be achieved on that wide and open franchise, whereas the UK-wide electoral system will be weakened and undermined by this Bill and by the Government’s refusal to accept the Lords amendments before us.

[John McDonnell]

I apologise to the Minister for being a few minutes late and therefore missing her introduction; I received a green card asking me to visit a constituent who was lobbying me.