Persecution of Christians and Freedom of Religion or Belief

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Rehman Chishti

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new call list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones, using the cleaning materials provided, before they use them, and should respect the one-way system around the room. Members should speak only from the horseshoe. Members may speak only if they are on the call lists. That applies even if debates are under-subscribed. Members may not join a debate if they are not on the call list. Members are not expected to remain for the winding-up speeches.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered progress on the Bishop of Truro’s independent review on persecution of Christians and freedom of religion or belief.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me the opportunity to have this Westminster Hall debate. As colleagues from across the House know, I led on the implementation of this report and on championing freedom of religion or belief as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I led on this work across Government from September 2019 to September 2020. I stepped down from that role because of a policy difference with the Government. It was on a matter of principle regarding the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and my personal commitment to respecting the rule of law.

At the outset of this debate, I would like to thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for giving me a chance to serve as his special envoy covering issues of freedom of religion or belief, which are dear to my heart. I know that they are also dear to the Prime Minister’s heart, and he made FORB a top priority for the Government.

I came to this country in 1984 at the age of six and as the son of an imam. My family and I were able to practise our faith openly and freely and were welcomed with open arms in Gillingham. A moral duty on me, whether in Parliament, as envoy or in everyday life, is to stand up for the rights of individuals from minority faiths around the world, so that they are able to practise their faith or belief openly and freely, as I did in Gillingham and as I do now in my home towns of Gillingham and Rainham.

I am most grateful to His Grace Archbishop Ian Ernest, the director of the Anglican Centre in Rome, for pointing me towards Jeremiah 29: 4-8, from the Bible, which he said means, “You should welcome all people, regardless of colour, creed or background, to your city, and when you join that city, you work hard for co-existence in that city, so that the area prospers.” Gillingham accepted me with open arms, and my parents taught me the values of respect, kindness and individual responsibility, which helped to give me an opportunity to serve my home town as its Member of Parliament and a chance now to serve its community.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated at the time of my appointment:

“A staggering 83% of the world’s population live in nations where religious freedom is threatened or banned. It is an area where the UK can and must make a difference.”

Those were the words of our Foreign Secretary. According to a Pew Research Center report, 84% of the world’s population claim to identify themselves with a religion. I agree with the BBC’s chief international correspondent:

“If you don’t understand religion—including the abuse of religion—it’s becoming ever harder to understand our world.”

I thank the Prime Minister for his personal commitment during my time in office and for his keen interest in my work. For example, when I sent an update note to the Prime Minister on the work that I was doing, I got a note back saying, “The Prime Minister very much appreciates what you have put in the update note. Can you clarify point x?” One does not need to know what point x is; that shows the Prime Minister’s personal interest in the note that had gone in and that he wanted to know more about the work that was being done.

In 2018, the Prime Minister also personally supported my campaign for the UK Government to grant asylum to Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five who was being persecuted in Pakistan for her faith, in an abuse of the blasphemy laws. I thank Members of Parliament from all parties for being absolutely amazing champions in promoting FORB in Parliament; I see them in Westminster Hall today.

I also thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for his personal support for my work as the Prime Minister’s special envoy. I thank him right from the outset for going to the extent, as the Minister knows, of saying that, as a special envoy, I was entitled to attend ministerial meetings on a Tuesday to give updates on FORB. The personal support that I received from him in this role was absolutely superb, and I thank him through the Minister; I have already thanked him personally, but I thank him again now.

Likewise, it was a real pleasure to work with Ministers from across the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on this top priority for the Government, and I thank all the excellent officials who I worked with on the FORB team at the Foreign Office.

I also personally thank four other individuals. Someone coming in as a special envoy is given a team of civil servants to work with, which is great, but I wanted experts, so I said that I would like to appoint my own four experts to advise me on delivering the 22 different recommendations. There is a recommendation on the United Nations Security Council resolution, which I will turn to later. I am not an expert on the United Nations Security Council, so who should I have appointed? I was very fortunate to have Sir Mark Lyall Grant, the United Kingdom’s former ambassador to the United Nations, a brilliant national security adviser and a former director general at the Foreign Office; I see the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), nodding with approval. Sir Mark is a brilliant former diplomat, so I was very lucky to have him on my advisory board.

I was also lucky to have Sir Malcolm Evans, a professor from the University of Bristol and a member of the Foreign Secretary’s advisory board on human rights, as well as Dr Naz Ghanea from Oxford University, who is brilliant on human rights and intersectionality on FORB issues and women’s issues across the board. Finally, I was fortunate to have Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, a former bishop in Pakistan and also Bishop of Rochester, so he covers all the jurisdictions and issues that face individuals.

I turn now to the report from the Bishop of Truro. As colleagues from all parties know, the Bishop of Truro’s independent review was commissioned by the previous Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), on 26 December 2018, to consider the persecution of Christians around the world. As I see it, the review was a direct response to wide-ranging reports that the suffering of Christians globally and especially that of Christian minorities is of such a scale and intensity that it can no longer be ignored by the Government or other actors. I thank my right hon. Friend the former Foreign Secretary for commissioning that report.

The review was carried out by the Bishop of Truro, Philip Mounstephen, and his team: Sir Charles Hoare, David Fieldsend and Rachael Varney. On 9 July 2019, Bishop Philip published his report, which made 22 recommendations. This Government, like the previous Government of Prime Minister May, accepted those 22 different recommendations in full.

I thank Bishop Philip for his excellent work and detailed report. As the report, which I have here with me, spells out on page 4:

“Across the globe, in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, Christians are being bullied, arrested, jailed, expelled and executed. Christianity is by most calculations the most persecuted religion of modern times.”

That is a statement from Bishop Philip, who was asked by our Government to carry out a report into the scale of persecution of Christians around the world.

One needs to look at the work and the data of excellent NGOs such as Open Doors, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Aid to the Church in Need—to name just a few—that I had the real pleasure of meeting and interacting with, because best policy is made when we speak to, listen to and engage with people on the ground, and our NGOs do that.

I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). She organised the Open Doors event that was attended by over 110 parliamentarians from across the House—Members of the Commons and Members of the Lords. That is why I say to the Government that in this Parliament the issue of religious freedom is a top priority among parliamentarians, and so is the delivery of this report, which I will shortly outline.

It would not be fair of me if I did not refer to what Bishop Philip said on page 7 of his report. He wrote:

“To argue for special pleading for one group over another would be antithetical to the Christian tradition. It would also, ironically, expose that group to greater risk. We must seek FoRB for all, without fear or favour.”

The report and its recommendations, which I was taking forward for the Government, were designed to protect and stand up for freedom of religion or belief for all.

For me, freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental right for everyone. It is crucial for a peaceful, prosperous, virtuous society as well as being a national security priority. When I came in, I split the delivery of the different recommendations into short-term, medium-term and long-term deliverability, after I had consulted Bishop Philip. I had the report and I asked myself the question, “What is behind this report and these recommendations?” I met Bishop Philip to ask, “How can we take these forward? Why did you come up with that recommendation? What did you have in mind when you designed that recommendation?” His advice and counsel, from the outset and throughout, has been outstanding.

There were challenges during the year. We had a general election, which meant we were away from Parliament for a bit, and there was covid-19. From March, covid-19 meant that resources and officials working on this area were deployed elsewhere, to a certain extent, and rightly so. They were dealing with covid-19 and making sure that our citizens were brought back from different parts of the world. I thank the Foreign Secretary and Foreign Minister for doing a great job and getting 1.2 million of our citizens back to the UK.

On 13 September 2020, after one year in office, 17 of the Truro recommendations were either fully implemented or progressed. How did I come up with those 17 recommendations? It is important to have accountability. In July this year, we had a new head of freedom of religious belief, Juliet, a brilliant official tasked with overseeing all of the FORB work. I asked her to review every aspect of the work that I led on, because there needed to be accountability for my work.

I asked Juliet to look at the different recommendations across the board because by July, when I gave evidence to the yearly review with Bishop Truro, there were 11 recommendations that may have been classed as moving forward into the category of implemented or fully implemented, but I wanted someone to independently look at that. On 7 September, Juliet, as the head of FORB, and said that 17 recommendations could be classed as fully implemented or progressed.

I will touch on some of those recommendations now. Recommendation 1 says:

“Ensure FoRB…alongside other human rights and values, is central to FCO operation,”

and talks about a “Diplomatic Code.” When I read the report, my first question was. “What do we mean by a diplomatic code? Bishop Philip, what do you mean by a diplomatic code?” He said, “It is an internal working programme for the Foreign Office.” It provides overarching objectives for the Foreign Office.

I then met the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office and said, “This is the recommendation. This is what is designed to be delivered. Can we look at how we take this forward?” He said, “Rehman, one of the objectives we have at the Foreign Office at the moment is promoting freedom of religion or belief for all.” In the Foreign Secretary’s evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee last week, he gave a three-winged approach on freedoms—FORB freedom, media freedom and Magnitsky sanctions. On the framework, I asked officials to come back by December with a recommendation of how it could be taken forward.

The next recommendation will take a bit of time, Mr Hollobone, but it is important that I cover it for Members. It says:

“Articulate an aspiration to be the global leader in championing FoRB”.

That is crucial. It is a top priority for our Government, but what have we actually done to make it a top priority? How have we interacted with others around the world?

When I advised the Government, it was a delight to join the International Religious Freedom Alliance as a founding member in 2020. The IRFA is an organisation of like-minded states that respect freedom of religion or belief, as in article 18 of the declaration of human rights. It was launched in Washington by Secretary of State Pompeo with over 20 members from states around the world. I had the pleasure of representing the United Kingdom at that meeting.

I pay tribute to Sam Brownback, United States ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom. He had a vision of creating an international alliance that could take swift, quick and appropriate action with like-minded partners, and he made it a reality by getting the alliance set up. It has done work on covid-19 and the challenge that we face. We sit here in Parliament representing constituencies. Our constituents have faced challenges and difficulties, but some citizens around the world have suffered more than others under covid-19 for being a member of a religious minority. So what has the alliance been doing?

The alliance helped religious prisoners of conscience in Yemen and worked to get prisoners of conscience in the Baha’i community released. In Eritrea, religious prisoners of conscience were released. On speaking to Ambassador Brownback at the weekend, I learnt that 1,679 religious prisoners of conscience in Uzbekistan have been released with the direct involvement of the alliance and the work of Ambassador Sam Brownback, and it would be unfair of me not to mention the work of the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Ahmed Shaheed. I thank them all.

Before I stepped down I was fortunate to be the vice-chairman of the international alliance, having helped to create it, and the members had asked if I would serve as co-vice-chair with Ambassador Jos Douma from the Netherlands, who did a terrific job on the campaign to get the Baha’is released in Yemen. Another issue that we faced was how to get like-minded countries to make a statement on the persecution of individuals around the world, and there was a covid-19 statement from 18 countries.

I must highlight what minorities around the world have faced during covid-19. First, some Governments have used the pandemic to further repress religious minorities. Secondly, religious minorities are often discriminated against when it comes to the provision of food, aid and healthcare. Thirdly, some religious minorities are being blamed for the spread of covid-19 and are targeted as a result. Fourthly, online propaganda campaigns are targeting religious minorities. Fifthly, technology is being used to further repress, discriminate or surveil religious minorities. That is why the United Kingdom alone cannot make a difference. We have to work with like-minded partners through multilateral fora, which is what the alliance did. I want to give a huge thanks to Professor Mariz Tadros from CREID, the Coalition for Religious Equality and Inclusive Development, who recently covered that point at the G20.

CREID has been doing vital work on covid-19 and the scapegoating of religious minorities in countries such as India, Pakistan and Iraq. In Pakistan, CREID provided poor sanitation workers, predominantly from Christian backgrounds, with awareness training around personal protective equipment. As well as providing the equipment, CREID conducted advocacy activities with the Government around the right to dignity, respect and protection.

I see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) sitting to my right. His report on minorities in Pakistan and his visit with Lord Alton was absolutely superb. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for what he does day in, day out, and for what he has done throughout his career in Parliament. I also thank his colleagues on the APPG. I have a small example. When I was the envoy and I needed to know what was going on, I used to have Twitter alerts from the APPG to find out what was going on. The guys on the APPG were absolutely brilliant. Also, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for her report on minorities in Pakistan.

On the canonisation of St John Henry Newman, a great British saint who made a global impact, we were at the Holy See. We had an APPG delegation there at the time. We also had His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales leading the United Kingdom delegation. We had two Secretaries of State representing the United Kingdom Government and we had the Prime Minister’s special envoy. I thank our brilliant ambassador to the Holy See, Sally Axworthy, for the way in which the celebrations were conducted. If colleagues have not had a chance to read His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales’s October 2019 article in The Tablet on interfaith at the time of the canonisation of St John Henry Newman, I strongly suggest that they do, and I thank him for his work on interfaith dialogue. I will come to the Minister in due course.

For the UK to be a leader on FORB prompts the question of whether the United Kingdom will host the international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief. I went to the United States and said, “Hey, the United Kingdom would like to host that conference.” Other countries wanted to do it, but the United States said that the United Kingdom could do it. We decided on 2021 for the full conference, but then the decision came back and officials said, “It will be in 2021, but I understand that given covid-19, COP26 is being moved to 2022. Would you do it?” I did not think we should have a virtual semi-conference; there should be a full conference. I spoke to counterparts in the United States to ask whether another country could step in in 2021, and the United Kingdom in 2022. The Foreign Secretary accepted my advice. It would be great if the Minister could say exactly when in 2022 the United Kingdom will host that conference.

Recommendation 2 was for the United Kingdom to:

“Advocate that member states introduce a Special Envoy position for FoRB”.

The first country that I visited as the envoy, on transit to the Holy See, was Bahrain, a Muslim-majority country that has a good track record on interfaith, mutual co-existence. It has had a Hindu temple for 200 years and churches for over 100 years. The vicar from my constituency, Reverend Chris Butt, had been the vicar at St Christopher’s Cathedral in Bahrain just prior to my visit. I asked His Majesty King Hamad whether Bahrain would appoint a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I was pleased that one of the last meetings that I had in my official capacity was with the Foreign Minister of Bahrain in early September and he said, “His Majesty has considered your request, and Bahrain will appoint a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief in due course.”

Recommendation 3 is to

“Name the phenomenon of Christian discrimination”.

The decision on that recommendation was not made by the envoy. Research was allocated to Archbishop Angaelos of the Coptic Christian Church. Through the John Bunyan fund for freedom of religion and belief, 15 projects were given money to conduct research on FORB. He put forward a submission, and he has a strong track record on freedom of religion or belief. The research was carried out by his team, and I hear that there were mixed representations. Some want a name for the phenomenon of Christian persecution, and some do not, but the recommendation was from Archbishop Angaelos, not me as the envoy. The key thing from him was saying that there should be a recognition of the phenomenon of Christian persecution. I accept that the most persecuted faith in the world is the Christian faith, and we should advocate our policy with that in mind.

Recommendation 4 is

“to gather reliable information and data on FoRB to better inform the development of international policy.”

I am pleased to say that recommendation 4 is another that has been adopted and is now part of business as usual at the Foreign Office. Research continues, but let me say this: various projects funded by the John Bunyan fund, which I will discuss in greater detail, will also feed into the delivery of recommendation 4. Furthermore, I was delighted to meet representatives of the Religious Freedom Institute in Washington earlier this year. With the help of the funding from the FCDO Magna Carta fund, it has developed a highly sophisticated online tool to gather simple, meaningful, accessible, reliable and timely smart data on religious freedom landscapes across the globe. That is how we got the data from the work with the RFI, and the strategy that was applied. The smart tool collects data in 17 countries and aims to focus on collecting detail in a very localised way.

CREID has also produced some excellent work in this area, including a working paper titled “Humanitarian and Religious Inequalities: Addressing a Blind Spot”, which discusses religious inequalities being blind in humanitarian frameworks and how humanitarian actors can incorporate sensitivity to religious difference and persecution into their programmes.

Recommendation 5 would:

“Bolster research into the critical intersection of FoRB and minority rights”

and gender issues. Again, I pay tribute to CREID and I thank the Government for allocating in 2018 via DFID £12 million for research into security, economic activity and religious hate content online. The CREID paper “Invisible Targets of Hatred: Socioeconomically Excluded Women from Religious Minority Backgrounds” addresses the intersection of religious, gender, social, economic, ethnic and geographic marginalities affecting women who belong to religious minorities in six contexts. CREID has also been working on countering hate speech online, which can often have severe violent consequences in real time. If colleagues have not seen it, the research is available in documents such as the ones I have here. It is crucial that that research is taken into account when Foreign Office officials, and those who were in DFID, make policy.

Recommendation 6 would establish permanently the role of the special envoy. Peter Jones was appointed a director-level champion on FORB and he did a terrific job and I thank him for his support. Based on my experience, my advice to the Government, as we look to appoint a new envoy, is to consider how we make the post most effective. The Minister is terrific; he is a great Minister. However, the work on FORB and the Truro review is led by an envoy, and an envoy does not have the authority to shape or make policy; an envoy does not have the authority to come before Parliament to answer questions on why certain decisions have been taken on certain countries; an envoy may pick up an issue on the alliance and try to put it through the system, but he does not have the authority for political or policy steering. Therefore, my advice to the Government and to whoever comes in next is to give the role the maximum authority possible by ensuring that that person has that authority and is answerable to Parliament. When I was the envoy, I used to read all the debates introduced by Members, and it was a pleasure to read them. If whoever comes in as the Government’s key lead on FORB, they should have the authority to be accountable to Parliament for the decisions that they make about different countries.

Recommendation 7 would:

“Ensure that there are mechanisms in place to facilitate an immediate response to atrocity crimes, including genocide”

and would set up an early-warning system. I was advised by the FORB team that the United Kingdom already has a strategy to deal with early-warning signs and genocide but I refer colleagues to the speech made by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) in the previous Westminster Hall debate led by the hon. Member for Strangford. It was a powerful speech and highlighted the need to get the early-warning system right. In the seventh paragraph of his speech in the debate on the large-scale persecution of religious or racial minorities on 12 March, the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) highlighted the issues that lead to intolerance and hatred going to their ultimate extent.

The work on the subject is being undertaken by the FORB team and a note was to reach the envoy in December. However, the alliance is crucial as part of that thematic work that I advised the Government to join. The occurrence of mass atrocities targeting members of religious and ethnic minority groups has highlighted the need for greater co-ordination among countries and a more robust response whether atrocities are perpetrated by state actors, such as Myanmar against the Rohingyas, or by non-state actors, such as in Iraq by Daesh. The alliance can serve as the mechanics to mobilise a response based on the principles of action in the joint declaration of principles. That is the vision but before we do that, we can still work together to share good practice.

Recommendation 9 is to be prepared to impose sanctions. I thank our sanctions team. Before we had the designations in July, Bishop Philip and I met the sanctions team at the Foreign Office so that he could explain recommendation 7. There was a FORB perspective on the designations and in the first designations were two Myanmar generals. I read the debate on 12 October on China’s policy on the Uyghur people and seen the United States’ position on the sanctioning of individuals for the way the Uyghurs have been treated in Xinjiang province. As a parliamentarian, do I think the line has been crossed for the United Kingdom to designate individuals in line with what the United States has done to members of the Chinese Communist party? The answer is yes. In this Parliament, Government needs to take into account the views of parliamentarians. As the envoy, I saw debate after debate: a freedom of religion debate on 12 March, 10 October and 6 February, and the debate on 12 October 2020 on China’s policy on its Uyghur population. That debate says it all.

The United Kingdom has a moral obligation to do the right thing and stand up for our global values: democracy, rule of law and liberty. That means taking that decisive, appropriate action. I know the Government have done that in Belarus with sanctions on certain individuals, but my question to the Government now is: why wait? We took the decision and, on my understanding, designations were supposed to be every few months. We took an exceptional decision on Belarus, and rightly so. Why are we not taking that decision on the Uyghur situation in China? My understanding of the Magnitsky sanctions is that, as global Britain, we are working with our like-minded partners Canada and the United States. The United States has designated individuals from the Chinese Communist party on the sanctions list, with visa restrictions, export restrictions, a ban on exporting to the US and business advice to US companies, cautioning businesses about the reputational, economic and legal risk. As such, I say to the Minister that the United Kingdom should quickly and swiftly do the right thing. Our great parliamentarian William Wilberforce is quoted on page 6 of Bishop Truro’s report:

“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never again say you did not know”.

On that recommendation, future designations always need to consider FORB and I ask the Government to make that decision on exceptional grounds, quickly and swiftly.

Recommendation 10 is for

“The Foreign Secretary to write to FCO funded ‘arm’s length’ bodies”.

I am pleased to say the Foreign Secretary wrote to the Westminster Foundation, Wilton Park and the British Council: done, done and done. I also highlight something crucial to colleagues: the Foreign Office-produced reports on conferences on protecting vulnerable religious minorities in conflict; promotion of freedom of religion or belief; tackling violence committed in the name of religion; and fostering social cohesion in Nigeria. Nigeria will come up in the debate, and colleagues may highlight that. When I was the envoy, I said to officials “Let’s have a Wilton Park conference on Nigeria” and we had that. The documents are superb and highlight the United Kingdom and the Foreign Office’s commitment and good practice and I ask colleagues that we move forward in that.

The next recommendation is number 11, to ensure

“both general and contextual training in religious literacy”.

When I first came into office, that was one of my first goals. Unless our diplomats have the right training across the board, how do they pick up the issues of intolerance, hatred and non-violent extremism that lead to violent extremism? We need to make sure our diplomats have that. We have some of the best diplomats in the world; I have worked with them. However, they need to be given the right tools.

When I came in, there was some support through the LSE programme. Now, there is a Cambridge module on religious literacy. However, tying in with recommendation 13 to

“deliver tailored responses to FoRB violations at Post level”,

I have a recommendation for the Government. When I came in there were four priority countries, but I say there should be 13 review countries. How do you identify a review country? I asked Sir Mark Lyall Grant, our former ambassador—I am running close on time, but I shall be very brief in my summing up. Review countries are based on where the most significant infringement on FORB is taking place and where the United Kingdom can make the most impact on it. I wrote to 24 different missions with a view to getting 13 put into that category. We could, then, ensure that the diplomats going to those 13 countries had that tailored support.

Recommendation 14:

“Ensure FCO human rights reporting”.

I am pleased to say that the annual human rights report covers freedom of religion or belief in that regard.

Recommendation 17 is for

“The FCO to convene a working group for government departments and civil society”

to engage. I am pleased to say that the FORB forum, chaired by Bishop Truro, has recently been established by a diverse group of human rights NGOs, civil society organisations and faith groups. The UK FORB forum is a mechanism for civil society actors to engage with HM Government on the issue and ensure that egregious violations in both individual cases and systematic abuses are looked at. I thank Bishop Philip and the civil society organisations for coming forward.

Among the final recommendations I want to cover, one concerns the annual event in support of the UN international day on victims of religious violence. The United Kingdom supported Poland at the UN on that, and carried out a Red Wednesday event, with Aid to the Church in Need. Buildings across Government Departments were lit in red. I spoke about that at Westminster Cathedral.

Recommendation 20 is for the United Kingdom to secure a Security Council resolution on FORB. When I first came into office I advised and spoke to No. 10 and the Foreign Secretary, and I spoke to and got a note back from our mission in New York on a strategy to take forward that recommendation. I gave the Foreign Secretary an update note on that in July. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for accepting my advice on the strategy to take that recommendation forward. Before I left, that matter was on my desk. The United Kingdom has the Security Council presidency in February next year and I would like confirmation that the United Kingdom will move that motion then.

I am grateful to colleagues for their amazing support and their championing of FORB, and I look forward to working with them on this again as a parliamentarian.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I am obliged to call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 10.31, which gives us 24 minutes of Back-Bench time, so I am going to impose a four-minute limit so that we can get the contributions of the six Members in. The Scottish National party spokesman has generously volunteered to limit his contribution to six minutes, but the guideline limits for Her Majesty’s Opposition and the Minister are 10 minutes each, with two or three minutes at the end for Mr Chishti to sum up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rehman Chishti]

I thank the Minister for that response, and I also thank colleagues. People of all faiths or beliefs and none have the concept of forgiveness, and I ask for forgiveness for going on for longer than I should have at the outset.

I can only do my job as envoy because of the fantastic work of parliamentarians pushing it at every level, and constituents. The first question I asked at the Foreign Office was where FORB is on the scale of correspondence. I was told that it was the second-highest issue that people write to the Foreign Office about after the middle east peace process. It is fantastic that, when we speak to officials, we can say, “This is what Parliament says, and this is what constituents say.” We have a duty to deliver and do everything we can on FORB.

From our days of playing cricket for the House of Commons cricket team, I know about the Minister’s captaining—his brilliant strategy, frankness, openness and listening—and I thank him for all he does. I just want to ask a couple of things. The FORB forum, led by Bishop Philip, is brilliant at getting NGOs together. In addition to writing the letter for the new special envoy, the work it has done on China, Nigeria and Iraq recently is absolutely crucial. It would be great if the Minister was able to meet with it and discuss that at its monthly meetings.

I should mention recommendation 12:

“Establish a clear framework for reporting”

at post. That was more or less signed off in my time. I ask the Minister for the FORB toolkit to be shared around the world.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No.10(6)).

Sentencing (Green Paper)

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Rehman Chishti

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hollobone]

I am grateful for that intervention. I have some statistics that I shall use later about how we do not have enough people in prison in this country, which relates to the point that my hon. Friend has just made.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that we have to look at overall sentencing in three respects—punishment, rehabilitation and deterrence? Given what the previous 13 years have left us, I completely agree with him—criminals have had it far too easy in prison. The Government’s payback proposals will ensure that prisoners go out and work. When a compensation order is passed in court, they will no longer be able to say, “We haven’t got the money; we are on welfare.” The Secretary of State’s proposal will ensure that they have to work, earn their keep and pay back the money. That must be a good thing.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend is right about that, but prisoners need to work more in prison. On page 9 of the Green Paper, I am pleased to see the coalition Government say:

“Prisoners will increasingly face the tough discipline of regular working hours. This has been lacking in prison regimes for too long.”

I say, “Hear, hear” to that.

[Mr Hollobone]

It should be pursued, yes, but not for persistent and prolific offenders. Far too many nasty people commit all sorts of horrible crimes and never find themselves in prison. On page 6 of the Green Paper, the coalition Government say:

“Recent evidence suggests there is a group of around 16,000 active offenders at any one time, who each have over 75 previous convictions”.

The document goes on:

“On average they have been to prison 14 times, usually for less than 12 months, with nine community sentences and 10 fines.”

Prison works but only when people are sent to prison for an appropriate amount of time. It is clear to all of us that short prison sentences do not work. My solution is to send these very nasty 16,000 people to prison for longer so that they can be rehabilitated before being let out into the community.

[Rehman Chishti]

With regard to short sentences, is it not the case that a prisoner who is on six months will do three months and be transferred from one prison to another and then another? Therefore, there is no effective rehabilitation within the system. If the prisoner stays in one prison, he will have management and structure rather than being pushed from one prison to another. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that must be changed?

[Mr Hollobone]

That is an excellent point with which I entirely agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

I am sorry, but that person is a nasty person. Just because someone is not violent does not mean that they are not nasty. I contend that the reason that they are reoffending is that they never serve their sentence in full. Even if someone is sentenced to 18 months for shoplifting, no one in this country will ever serve such a sentence. They might be sentenced to that, but the chances are that they will be out reoffending within six months. My contention is that such people need to be in jail for at least a year to enable proper rehabilitation to take place.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend is spot on in terms of what went on from April 2007 to April 2010 when some 80,000 prisoners were let out on early release. That was absolutely shocking. When a sentence is passed, we must ensure that it is fully complied with.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The previous Government made an almighty mess of this. Even though I disagree with the main thrust of this Green Paper, I commend the coalition Government for taking an organised and proactive interest in trying to address this issue sensibly, which the previous Government did not do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

I agree with my hon. Friend. However, prison conditions are far too luxurious. I think that it is 1,500 prisoners who have Sky TV in their cells. I have lots of constituents in Kettering who cannot afford Sky TV. It is a scandal that prisoners receive a bigger allowance for their daily meals than our troops in Afghanistan. In many cases, prison accommodation is too comfortable.

On the other hand, I accept that when a prison is overcrowded it makes rehabilitation more difficult and it is appropriate that we have the right number of cells for the prisoners whom we need to house. However, there must be a limit on the quality of the accommodation on which we are currently spending lots of money.

The other point that I wanted to draw to the House’s attention is the fact that the country with the lowest prison rate—the UK—has the highest crime rate. Is that a coincidence? I do not think so. We have more than 10,000 crimes for every 100,000 people. The country with the highest prison rate, which is the US, has the lowest crime rate; it has about 4,500 crimes for every 100,000 people. Canada, which is the country with the second lowest prison rate, has the second highest crime rate. The EU has the second highest prison rate and the second lowest crime rate. That is not a coincidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has done a lot of very good work in this House in highlighting these statistics, which I think blow apart this namby-pamby approach to having soft community sentences to tackle the behaviour of some very nasty people.

[Rehman Chishti]

I wanted to make a point with regard to community penalties. I have been at the criminal Bar and prosecuted and defended many cases. Is it not the case that the Green Paper should be welcomed, because community penalties will be tied in with greater use of curfew orders? We should give offenders hard work during the day, make sure that it is done and that it is hard work, but we must also ensure that their liberty on Friday and Saturday nights is completely curtailed, so that rather than have them committing crimes, going out until the early hours and making a nuisance of themselves, we should make greater use of curfew orders, which is what this Green Paper is all about.

[Mr Hollobone]

I agree with my hon. Friend that if we must have these community penalties, they need to be tough and unpleasant. Frankly, the gangs that I have seen taking part in these sort of activities have not been that disciplined, were not working that hard and I very much doubt the utility of the work that they were doing.

[Mr Hollobone]

Yes, but my contention is that there are some unpleasant people out there who will commit crime unless they are prevented from doing so by being put in prison. When half the crimes committed in this country are being committed by 10% of the offenders, those 10% of offenders do not need to be out there doing good works on the street; they need to be behind bars so that they cannot reoffend.

The concluding part of my remarks is that although I recognise the good intentions of the Ministry of Justice in trying to reduce reoffending—I do not doubt the Ministry’s efforts in that regard—the obvious thing to do to reduce prison numbers is sort out the 11,500 foreign national prisoners in our jails. The number of such prisoners doubled under the previous Government.

I have raised this issue time and time again on the Floor of the House and frankly we are not getting very far. One of the countries that has a high number of its nationals as prisoners in our country is Nigeria. When I last looked at the figures, I saw that there were something like 752 Nigerian nationals in prison in our country. Effectively, we are paying £30 million a year for incarcerating those individuals. The Nigerian National Assembly has been looking at this issue since 2007. Why are we not hauling in the Nigerian ambassador or speaking to the Nigerian President to get this arrangement sorted out, because sending 752 Nigerians back to Nigeria would go a long way to freeing up the 3,000 prison places that my hon. Friend the Minister wants to find?

[Rehman Chishti]

I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said with regard to foreign nationals. Linked to that point, what must change is the procedure that is applied to removal orders and the time that it takes for somebody to be removed from this country. At the moment, there is a disjointed approach and that must change, so that once someone has been through the courts, their removal must be swift.

[Mr Hollobone]

As usual, my hon. Friend is quite right. However, now we have the Prime Minister launching a campaign on the front page of the Daily Mail to say that repatriating foreign national prisoners is one of his top priorities. Please can we have a joined-up approach across this Government—across the Ministry of Justice, the Foreign Office and the Home Office—to ensure that we actually get these people back to their own countries? Then we will create the space in prison that we need to rehabilitate people properly, reduce the overall prison population if need be and stop people reoffending.