Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Situation

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady rightly identifies the importance of getting back to the two-state solution, which is the policy of the British Government and has repeatedly been the policy of British Governments. She may rest assured that Britain, along with its allies, is absolutely focused on the wellbeing of the people of Gaza and their future. It is very important to make clear that Hamas is not the Palestinians.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

To tackle this humanitarian crisis, we need to strain every sinew for a ceasefire. The UN Secretary-General says that we need a ceasefire, one binding on all sides. The UN high commissioner for human rights also says that we need a ceasefire; so, too, do the heads of the UN’s Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the UN Children’s Fund, UN Women, the UN World Food Programme and the World Health Organisation. In fact, the heads of all major United Nations agencies are calling for a humanitarian ceasefire. Why do this Government think that they know better than the world’s leading humanitarian agencies?

[Mr Mitchell]

Again, I am not sure that I can add to the very comprehensive and full answer that I have already given the House on that point, but let me make clear that it is not the policy of either the Government or the Opposition to call for a ceasefire, for the reasons I have set out. However, all of us across the House are engaged in trying to bring these dreadful events to a close.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Is it not simply impossible to get aid in on the scale that is needed if we are to end the humanitarian nightmare under way in Gaza without a ceasefire?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Member has heard the detailed responses from the Dispatch Box today on the difficulties entailed, and I reiterate what I said earlier: we are doing everything we can to try to make sure that we help those who are suffering in Gaza today.

Gaza: Al-Ahli Arab Hospital Explosion

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The distribution plan for the initial £10 million that the Prime Minister announced on Monday is still being worked on, but I can assure the hon. Lady that we are have very close relationships with non-governmental organisations and aid organisations based in the UK and operating in Gaza and the region. We will of course be liaising with them both in terms of getting an updated understanding of the situation on the ground and of maximising our support to the Palestinian people.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The most urgent priority must be to prevent the loss of any more civilian lives. To do so, the UN General Secretary has called for an immediate ceasefire. Leading humanitarian agencies such as Oxfam have also called for that. Surely the Government must add their voice to that. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, if they do not, many thousands more will die? Will he also withdraw his earlier remark that what is going on is not forced relocation? If he does not, I believe that he will come to regret that remark.

[James Cleverly]

Of course all of us want to see an end to the lives that have been lost, but we also recognise that Israel feels the need to take action to protect the lives of its citizens from the attacks emanating from Hamas and other terrorist organisations in Gaza. We have always said that, in our support for that activity, we call upon it to abide by humanitarian law, as its President has committed to doing.

UK-Chile Relations and 50th Anniversary of Coup in Chile

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the parliamentary authorities for allowing this debate to take place. It might be said that the events under discussion took place a long time ago, but I am going to argue that they are relevant to this day. I want to speak principally about the events of 50 years ago and their contemporary significance, but let me begin by referring to the fact that both Chile and the United Kingdom are now part of this slightly bizarre relationship in the Pacific—not that we are anywhere near there—and that in some ways we are partners.

I hope that the Minister will not focus purely on the commercial relationships between our two countries, although those are important—trade is an important factor in bringing people together. But beyond trade, international relationships are also about democracy, progress and human rights, and about resisting torture and arbitrary murder. Those things are important too. When it comes to Britain’s role in the world, if we want to really be a motor for progress, yes, we should promote trade, but we should equally promote democracy and those other things that I have just referred to.

My next point, on which I will touch briefly, is about whether those events 50 years ago are still important today. I want to argue that they are, and for three reasons. The first is perhaps the most personal. I was 23 at the time of the coup, and it marked me profoundly. I do not know exactly why; over the past century, the capacity of human beings to inflict the most awful damage on other human beings—and animals and the planet too, come to that—has been profound. Yet somehow those events in Chile have particularly stayed with me from that day to this. I feel I want to make some points here about them because I believe that there is unfinished business for the British Government.

The second reason is also personal, as I shall shortly refer to. Significant numbers of people came from Chile to escape the violence, murder, torture and bloodshed, as refugees. They came in numbers, which I will give shortly. I met them and helped them. Some of them were legitimately here. Some were in fear of their lives; we helped them, in a kind of underground railroad in Leeds, to avoid the people pursuing them who might well have tortured and killed them. I think the issue is still relevant because, in Chile, the constitution, currently much debated in the country’s political life, is the same as that introduced following the military junta. It is important for that matter to be resolved, although that is for the people of Chile. It is there as a current debate that is interesting to watch.

I am quite clear about the third reason why I think the issue is still contemporary. The experiment in Chile following the junta involved the introduction of what we have now come to call neoliberalism—the attack on so many public services, privatisation, globalisation and the triumph of finance over industry. All those aspects of economic life were first tried in Chile, dripping in blood, and then implemented elsewhere, including in our country. Those three factors play in my mind when I think about Chile.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech. Nobody who heard President Allende’s last speech in Chile as the bombs fell on the palace will ever forget his voice or his words.

As my hon. Friend has explained, Chile was the first place where the Chicago school of economics—Milton Friedman and the rest; “the Chicago boys”—rolled out their neoliberal experiment, which spread across Latin America. Actually, Latin America was the first place in the world not only where neoliberal economics was tried but where elected Governments, in the late ’90s, fought back against neoliberalism with a different view. Would my hon. Friend like to reflect on that? It is poignant to think about it today.

[Jon Trickett]

My hon. Friend is of course right. Famously, the Chicago boys, as they became known in Chile, were those in the economics department of the University of Chicago who developed a reactionary theory about how economies ought to be managed. It was implemented first in Chile, as my hon. Friend has just remarked, and that was the point I was making. It was rolled out elsewhere, too, and there were conservative and right-wing politicians throughout the world watching what was happening in Chile to see whether, not so much the bloodshed, but the economic experiment could be brought about in their countries too—and of course we have seen it in our country.

I was reflecting on why this is still a contemporary matter and want to refer to some correspondence I received today from the Bell family, refugees from Chile at the time of the coup. The brother of the father of the family was murdered by the military and I understand that the father was imprisoned and tortured. They say in an email:

“As a family, we experienced unspeakable horrors at the hands of Pinochet and the military coup.”

It goes on to talk about communities in the UK who welcomed them, but the family has doubts about the role of the UK Government and I am going to come on to that. The email goes on to say:

“For 50 years we have been fighting for justice, searching for those who were disappeared and campaigning for the perpetrators to be held to account for the human rights violations.”

And we know the facts: the junta killed 3,600 people, tortured 40,000, and some 200,000 were driven away from their home country by what was going on there. The scale of this is hard to come to terms with, yet it happened and there are families who still today do not know where their disappeared ones are.

There is also a programme to build a memory forest for every person who was a victim called Ecomemoria. I recommend that Members have a look at it; there is a memorial there to each person who was killed.

As a young person I was beginning to think about politics. I had been a manual worker; I had left school at 15 with no qualifications and I had come across the ideas of socialism. I looked across the world; the distance between London and Santiago is 7,000 km but somehow it was inspiring to see a country trying to create a new path to this creed that I was beginning to embrace, called socialism. It was particularly inspiring to listen to President Allende, who insisted that:

“The road to socialism lies through democracy, pluralism and freedom.”

I was a young man, as I have said, and our hearts stood still as we hoped he would be able to find a peaceful road to socialism, although all the time we were hearing on the radio and the television that there was a possibility that something would happen there, and that was frightening. But we were also being told by the BBC and others that Chile had a long history of democratic representative government, and that the army and the Chilean state apparatus would not move against a Government; but, of course, they did.

Let me quickly talk about the United States. Allende moved more slowly than he promised he would. I was watching and thinking, “Get on with it, because there’s much more to do try to feed the poor and liberate so many working people in Chile.”

Early doors, Allende took public ownership of the copper industry. It was copper, above all—it was a resource that the Americans, the British and others were using—that turned the tide. Nixon’s crimes are well known, but among them we should add this: he had authorised action—I think he had put $3 million to one side—to try to prevent Allende from winning the election. The money was used in such a way as to try to achieve that. The CIA conducted spoiling operations prior to the Allende victory. Nixon personally authorised the agency to seek to instigate a coup to prevent Allende from taking office. Those were inappropriate—let us say it no more strongly than that—deeply reactionary activities by Washington. Santiago is 1,000 km further away from Washington than London. We cannot say that any kind of military or other threat was posed by Chile to the interests of the United States or Britain.

Moving on to the British Government, Edward Heath recognised Pinochet within 11 days of the coup. Diplomatic cables that have now become available in the National Archives indicate that the British Government were fully aware of the violence being used by the Pinochet regime against innocent people, whose only so-called sin was to hope for a better world. They were working people, socialists, trade unionists and activists of various kinds.

[Jon Trickett]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I have spoken in this House about antisemitism, and I have been the victim of antisemitism, because we have Jewish blood in my family. I have even been to Leeds court as the victim of antisemitic behaviour. Nobody feels more strongly about this issue than me, and I am sure the whole House stands in condemnation of antisemitism generally. The hon. Member has made his points. I am not here to speak about that, so I will not follow him further down that track.

I was just speaking about the Heath Government. In the spirit of all-party truth, I need to record the fact that during the first of Harold Wilson’s Labour Governments, it appears to be the case that there was at least one MI6 officer in Santiago collaborating with the Chilean military prior to the coup.

When the coup happened, Heath was the Prime Minister, and Alec Douglas-Home was the Foreign Secretary. It is shocking to see what happened. They were aware of what was going on in Chile. The Foreign Secretary sent official guidance to British embassies across the world, only weeks after the coup, outlining British support—it is impossible to read it any other way—for the military junta. He said:

“For British interests…there is no doubt that Chile under the junta is a better prospect than Allende’s chaotic road to socialism, our investments”—

meaning British investments—

“should do better, our loans may be successfully rescheduled, and export credits later resumed, and the sky-high price of copper (important to us) should fall as Chilean production is restored”.

I am sorry, but it is simply not good enough for judgments on what is happening in a foreign country to be made on the basis of our commercial interests, as I said at the beginning of my speech.

The Heath Government defied calls from all sides to impose an arms embargo on Chile. In fact, they delivered Hawker Hunter jets to Chile before the 1974 general election, when there was a change of Government. It was Hawker Hunter jets that laid siege to the presidential palace during the coup. Over the past few days, it has been possible to listen to a Spanish language broadcast from BBC Latin America and hear the chilling sounds of the jets—British-made jets—attacking the palace, which resulted in the death of Allende. I am sorry, but it is not good enough that those events happened all those years ago, and I do not think we know the full truth about them yet.

As a Labour party member, I am sure that Members would expect me to say that, when Labour came back to office, I was pleased that the Wilson Government cut off all diplomatic relations and then instigated an arms embargo against the junta. However, Mrs Thatcher restored relations when she won the election a few years later in 1979.

The Wilson Government also accepted 3,000 Chilean refugees into our country. As I have said, I met a number of them in Leeds. Many of them are still here and have a personal interest in what happened. Those Chileans, who had fought for a different kind of country and a different kind of world, and who had friends, comrades and colleagues who were tortured and killed in the Santiago stadium and elsewhere, were among the finest people I have ever met. We can be proud that Britain had a tradition of accepting refugees into our country in such circumstances. If that were to happen again, I would like to think that Britain would be prepared to do the same. We took 3,000 Chilean refugees. Sweden took 40,000.

Let me wind up with a couple of points. I got to know those people. I worked with them and helped to feed some of them who were in the underground. We helped to house them—not many of them, just two or three. There were 250 in Leeds. They brought a different culture. We had Chilean music and Latin American music. It was the first time I had heard it. There were even cafés and restaurants opening serving Latin American food. It was a tremendously exciting time, but it was heartbreaking as well.

Before I make my final points, I just want to reflect on one thing. It has been possible to hear another sound on the BBC website this week, and it is even more chilling than that of the Hawker jets—built in Britain—attacking an elected President. It is the sound of the Chilean soldiers going to attack the palace of the elected President and they are singing a marching song. Visit the website if you like, but the sound is awful—it is bloodcurdling—because the marching song is a song developed by the Nazis. When we think about antisemitism, we know that it has resided above all with the Nazis. To think that the soldiers were attacking their own democratically elected President and singing marching songs from the Nazis is really bone-chilling.

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend has shared examples of chilling sounds from that coup. I would like to take this opportunity to ask him to share his memories of a very inspiring sound from Chile that the junta sought to silence, and that is the sound of the progressive folk singer Victor Jara, who went around Chile arguing for a better society and singing songs about social justice. He was taken to the football stadium, his hands, which usually played the guitar, were broken and then he was killed. Will my hon. Friend share his memories of Victor Jara during this significant anniversary week?

[Jon Trickett]

I do not want to detain the House for too long, but Victor Jara was a great folk hero. He chose to put his particular skills of singing and playing music at the disposal of the people, fighting for a better world and a better Chile. He was then taken to Santiago stadium, with thousands of others. His hands were immobilised so that he could never play music again, and finally he was killed.

I am reminded of the city of Leeds, and what happened with the Chile solidarity movement back in 1973-75. I hope the House will not mind if I detain us. The Chileans there decided to paint a tribute to Chile, to the movement and to our solidarity. They painted a large mural of Chilean people—peasants, workers and others—in vivid colours. Underneath it says: “And there will be work for all”. That was the simple objective of that Allende Government: to give decent work to all. It is not too difficult a thing to agree with.

Secondly on culture, there was a band that travelled Europe and Britain—I remember seeing them many times—called Inti-Illimani, which sang Chilean music. It was tremendously inspiring. It was great to be young and to fight back against what was an appalling assault on our common humanity in Chile.

I was trying to get to the end of my speech. I do not believe that we know all the truth about the British Government’s involvement, but we should. The email that I read earlier from the Bell family asks that the Government consider making public all the existing material that is not in the national archives, so that we know the true extent of what happened. To build a better future, it is important that we know what happened in our past.

I wonder whether I can tempt the Minister to express some sense of regret. Does he agree with my brief description of Britain’s involvement? I do not mean this in a partisan way, but this democratic Parliament—one of the great creators of democracy—should say that we regret our involvement at the time. I may be tempting it too far, but I feel that an apology is required from the House of Commons to the Chilean people who were killed and those who survived, and the children and grandchildren who are bereft of their dads, mums and grandparents. If the Government will not do it, let me say in my humble, Back-Bench way: I apologise on behalf of the British people—it is impertinent, but I do it—to the Chilean people for what happened in the name of the British Government, but not in the name of all of us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

22. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of recent violence in Israel and Palestine.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

23. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of recent violence in Israel and Palestine.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)]

The accelerating cycle of violence in the west bank is a cause of enormous concern, and the Government are intensely focused on the situation. While the UK firmly supports Israel’s right to defend itself and its citizens against terrorism, we urge the Israel Defence Forces to demonstrate restraint, adhere to the principles of international humanitarian law and ensure that civilians are protected. The UK’s position on settlements is clear: settlements are illegal under international law and call into question Israel’s commitment to the two-state solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

We welcome the joint statement from the heads of the Israel Defence Force, the Israeli Security Agency and Israeli police as well as statements by other Israeli leaders that condemn these criminal acts. We call on the authorities to ensure accountability for all perpetrators of violence. It is important that words are turned into actions.

[Richard Burgon]

Back in 2016, I was part of a parliamentary delegation that visited the Sub Laban family in their home of 70 years in the occupied old city of Jerusalem. Last week, Israel forcibly evicted them to make way for illegal settlers, as has been replicated time after time across occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the west bank. How many such violations of international law by Israel will have to take place before the Government act, including by banning UK trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as organisations such as Oxfam, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have called for?

Violence in the West Bank

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I will continue to state the fact that these violent activities are ongoing and colleagues are in discussions right now with Israeli counterparts. I do not wish to disturb those discussions in any way. I am here to update the House on as much as we know. It is an ongoing situation, but I know that when my colleague Lord Ahmad responds to an urgent question later in the day, he will have more information to share in the other place.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I have listened carefully to the Minister, but since 2015 the Government have sold £500 million-worth of arms to Israel, and UK arms have been implicated in previous atrocities against Palestine. Can the Minister say categorically whether any of that military equipment has been used in Israel’s assaults on the Jenin refugee camp? Does not this attack again show why the Government should suspend all arms sales to Israel until it abides by international law?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The Government take our defence export responsibilities seriously and we operate some of the most robust export controls in the world. I reiterate, as colleagues have heard me say before in previous roles, that all applications for export licences are assessed on a case-by-case basis against strict criteria and we will not issue a licence if there is a clear risk that equipment might be used for internal repression. The Government will continue to monitor closely the situation in Israel, Gaza and the west bank and, if extant licences are found to be no longer consistent with those criteria, those licences will be revoked.

Human Rights Protections: Palestinians

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

As we have heard today, Israel has elected the most extreme Government in its history. There has recently, rightly, been a huge focus on the threat that this new Government pose to judicial independence in Israel, which has prompted the largest protests in Israeli history. This new Israeli Government have also sparked widespread fears that they will deepen and entrench the illegal military occupation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, not least because the Government include extreme right-wing figures such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, previously convicted of inciting racism and supporting a terrorist organisation and who campaigned in the election on aggressively extending military control over Palestinians. Meanwhile, the Government’s new Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, recently said:

“There is no such thing as a Palestinian nation. There is no Palestinian history. There is no Palestinian language.”

That is truly chilling.

This is all deeply alarming for those of us who wish to see an end to all violence, and a future based on peace and justice. Already, 2023 is set to be even more deadly than 2022—itself one of the deadliest of recent years—with around 150 Palestinians killed in the west bank and East Jerusalem, and 30 Israelis killed. The United Nations has reported that already this year, by the end of March, 16 Palestinian children have been killed in the west bank, compared with two in the same period in 2022.

Today, I want to make a few remarks about the human suffering that I witnessed when, as a new MP in 2016, I visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Jerusalem. I met Palestinian families struggling against Israeli state-sanctioned human rights abuses, and I met Israeli human rights groups. In those few days, I got a glimpse of the daily suffering that the Palestinian people have endured for over 50 years under the Israeli state’s illegal occupation of the west bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza. I saw Israeli settlements that were illegally seizing land, and which do more than anything else to prevent a two-state solution. I visited a Palestinian village that had been repeatedly demolished. I spoke with Palestinians cut off from family and friends as a result of Israel’s illegal separation wall that divided Palestinian communities and annexed more land.

I attended military courts where Palestinian children are tried in a language they cannot read or speak, and in the old city of Jerusalem I visited the home of a Palestinian family who had lived there since 1953, who Israeli settlers were trying to force out of their home. Sadly, in recent weeks, that elderly couple whom I and other Members met—Nora Ghaith-Sub Laban, who is 67 years old, and her husband Mustafa, who is 72—faced imminent eviction. I have written to the Foreign Secretary about this. The spokesperson for the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has called on Israel to halt any such actions that lead to a risk of forcible transfer, which he said

“may amount to war crimes”.

On my visit, I did not have the opportunity to visit Gaza. It is almost impossible to imagine what it must be like to live on that tiny strip of land, smaller than the Isle of Wight, where 2 million inhabitants are unable to move freely, and whose access to clean water, electricity and healthcare is restricted by Israeli state actions.

A long-lasting peace for both Palestinians and Israelis can only be secured through a solution that tackles the underlying injustices faced by the Palestinian people. A two-state solution means that Palestine must have the right to exist, but Israeli state actions make that ever less likely. As the former colonial power in Palestine, Britain has a special responsibility to do all it can to end Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land, its colonial settlements, its denial of the right of Palestinian refugees to return, the siege of Gaza, and Israel’s violations of human rights and international law.

But words alone are not enough. We need action too. That means—it has to mean—that the British Government should recognise the state of Palestine, as this Parliament voted to do back in 2014. It means that we should end all trade with illegal Israeli settlements, and that we should impose an embargo on arms sales to Israel. The Government cannot pose as an honest broker when Britain has licensed around half a billion pounds-worth of arms exports to Israel since 2015. Without such actions, the Israeli state is effectively given the green light to continue its illegal actions, which are likely to kill all hope of a Palestinian state.

Iran

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House the opportunity to debate and speak at length on this vital issue. We have heard harrowing and illustrative case studies on the plight of the people in Iran. I also join my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in welcoming the formation of the committee for solidarity with the workers’ movement of Iran.

This is an issue on which many of us have been contacted by constituents with family and friends in Iran, or just by people who are deeply alarmed by the wave of brutal repression under way in Iran. The detention of thousands of people and the killing of many people by the Iranian Government in response to the protests against them, following the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, have appalled and alarmed us all.

Twenty-two-year-old Mahsa Amini was arbitrarily arrested by the so-called morality police for not complying with the country’s compulsory veiling laws. Nothing short of a popular uprising was sparked by her death in custody. About 1,000 separate protests are believed to have taken place across 146 cities and 140 university and college campuses around Iran. That uprising has democracy and civil rights placed at its core. It is right that we stand with pro-democracy and human rights activists in Iran, and that is why I and other hon. Members have signed early-day motion 581. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) on that initiative.

The initial uprising, led by brilliant and brave young women under the rallying cry, “Woman, Life, Freedom” has now widened. For example, I recently heard—we heard this from my right hon. Friend—about how there is now a series of labour movement actions against the Iranian Government. These nationwide protests have been met with lethal and unlawful violence by the Iranian authorities. Amnesty warns:

“Hundreds have been killed with impunity, including at least 44 children.”

Other estimates suggest that more than 16,000 people have been arrested. Today, we offer our solidarity with those who are campaigning for human rights and justice, especially those who are so bravely putting themselves at such great risk by doing so.

The rest of my remarks will focus on the use of the death penalty in Iran. As Amnesty says:

“In a new phase of this crackdown, Iranian authorities are not only continuing to carry out mass killings, arrests, enforced disappearances and torture of dissidents, but are now using the death penalty as a tool of political repression.”

In November, Iran’s legislators decreed that the death penalty could be applied to protesters brought before the courts on charges of “serious crimes” against the state. The charges against protesters have included vaguely defined national security charges such as “enmity against God”, “corruption on Earth” and “armed rebellion”. All those vaguely worded crimes are capital offences.

So far, four young men have faced arbitrary execution, following their sentencing during sham trials in connection with the protests. Majidreza Rahnavard was publicly executed less than two weeks after his only rubber-stamp court hearing. Mohsen Shekari was executed three weeks after Iranian authorities convicted him and sentenced him to death. Tragically, it was reported last week that Mohammad Mehdi Karami and Seyed Mohammad Hosseini were also executed.

The Iranian authorities must immediately drop the death sentences handed to other protesters. Amnesty International has identified 25 individuals who remain at serious risk of execution. As part of what needs to be an international campaign to prevent further executions, I wish to put on the record of this House the cases of those 25, who fall under four categories.

The first category is the individuals who have been sentenced to death: Mohammad Boroughani, Mohammad Ghobadlou, Manouchehr Mehman Navaz, Hamid Ghare Hasanlou, Sayed Mohammad Hosseini, Hossein Mohammadi and an unnamed individual in Alborz province. Reports suggest that two of the named individuals, Mohammad Boroughani and Mohammad Ghobadlou, have recently been moved to solitary confinement, raising fears that they may face imminent execution.

The second category is the individuals who have undergone trial on capital charges and who either are at risk of being sentenced to death or may already have been sentenced to death. As of 15 December, there was no publicly available information on the status of their cases. They are Saeed Shirazi, Abolfazl Mehri Hossein Hajilou and Mohsen Rezazadeh Gharegholou.

The third category is the individuals who have been charged with capital offences and may be either awaiting or undergoing trial. Their names are Akbar Ghafari, Toomaj Salehi, Ebarhim Rigi, Amir Nasr Azadani, Saleh Mirhashemi, Saeed Yaghoubi, Farzad Tahazadeh, Farhad Tahazadeh, Karvan Shahiparvaneh, Reza Eslamdoost, Hajar Hamidi and Shahram Marouf-Moula.

The fourth and final category is the individuals who have had their requests for judicial review accepted. Their cases are to be remanded to the lower court for retrial and they may therefore be resentenced to death. They are Sahand Nourmohammad-Zadeh, Saman Seydi Yasin and Mahan Sedarat Madani, who has a suspended sentence.

I have read out those names because it is very important that we do all we can to raise public awareness and make sure that the Government of Iran know that the international community is watching not only the wider wave of oppression, but the fate of those individuals. I know that the Minister will respond to this debate by explaining everything that the UK Government can do to put pressure on the Iranian Government not only to end the wider wave of oppression, but to ensure that the individuals named do not meet the fate of execution. Amnesty International fears that many others in addition to those I have named are at risk of facing the death penalty, given the thousands of people who have been arrested and the number of indictments that have been issued by the authorities.

It is very welcome that the House has the opportunity today, on a cross-party basis, to expose the reality for people in Iran who are facing the prospect of execution for nothing other than standing up for human rights and justice. It is really important that a united voice comes from the House today and that the Government explain to us what they can do. The Government can take steps: as colleagues have said, we are under no illusions, but our Government can be part of an international wave of pressure that can save lives in Iran and help to end this wave of repression.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rehman Chishti]

I will be delighted to do that—and, as a previous envoy, I appreciate my hon. Friend’s brilliant work.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

10. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of election observation arrangements for presidential elections in Brazil in October 2022.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)]

International observers will monitor Brazil’s elections in October, including from the Organisation of American States. They are experienced and well regarded. The independence of Brazil’s supreme electoral court is recognised internationally and its electronic voting machines have been widely recognised for speed, efficiency and security, but, as in many elections around the world, there are concerns about how disinformation online can threaten the integrity of the democratic process so we welcome the supreme electoral court of Brazil’s efforts to call out disinformation online ahead of the elections.

[Richard Burgon]

On the importance of defending democracy, I want to express, as I am sure many others do, my best wishes to the Argentinian Vice-President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, on whom there was an horrific assassination attempt last week.

I thank the Minister for her answer. The election in Brazil is the biggest election in the world this year and it is important that it takes place in free and fair conditions. Sadly, in recent months there has been targeted violence from supporters of President Bolsonaro against members of the main opposition party, including fatal shootings. Will the Government make a public statement ahead of next month’s vote that political violence and threats of coups have no place in this election?

[Vicky Ford]

I was also shocked by the assassination attempt on Vice-President Kirchner in Argentina. I am very relieved that she was not hurt and we strongly condemn hate and violence and stand firmly with Argentina in support of democracy and the rule of law.

On Brazil, democracy is under threat in many parts of the world and it is very important that Brazil continues to set an example to others on free and fair elections. Tomorrow, 7 September, Brazil celebrates the 200th anniversary of its independence and I congratulate the people of Brazil on that important milestone, but I also want to say that we all hope those celebrations are joyous and peaceful, because peace in elections is vital.

World Press Freedom Day

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing this crucial debate. It is always a pleasure to follow a speech by such an assiduous Member of Parliament as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

I will confine my comments to the particular case raised in detail by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), and referred to by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). It is the case of a journalist who, as we hold this debate, is in Belmarsh maximum security prison, in our country, and who has been languishing there for a number of years: Julian Assange. On World Press Freedom Day, it would be strange not to reflect on a journalist who is in prison in our country—a political prisoner—when the Home Secretary has signed a warrant for his extradition to the United States of America where, because of his journalism, he could be incarcerated with sentence of up to 175 years.

Julian Assange exposed war crimes and human rights abuses in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay that were carried out in our name. It is precisely because, as a journalist, he exposed those crimes, carried out in our name, that he is being extradited to the United States. That has a chilling effect, not only on Julian Assange, whose human rights have been abused—he has languished in Belmarsh prison, alongside convicted terrorists and dangerous people who have been convicted of very serious crimes—and his family, but on other journalists, because by choosing this course of action, powerful politicians in the United States and our own Home Secretary have sent a warning to journalists in our country and around the world. They have made an example of Julian Assange, so journalists who may come into possession of information, such as that revealed by Julian Assange about Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, may think, “If I reveal this as a journalist, what will happen to me? Will my fate be the same as the horrific fate of Julian Assange?” It is an act of intimidation by the US Government and our own Government, not only against Julian Assange but against other journalists, including budding journalists in our society and people growing up with the ambition to be journalists.

Julian Assange worked with The New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and El País. He was invited to our country by The Guardian newspaper. What he revealed was in the best traditions of journalism and whistleblowing, because it is really important that we know what is done in our name. That is part of the democratic function of journalism. Reporters Without Borders, the International Federation of Journalists, the National Union of Journalists and Amnesty International have spoken out against the action taken against Julian Assange as a journalist. John Simpson, famous for his fantastic work over so many decades with the BBC, said:

“Journalists in Britain and elsewhere will be very worried by the decision to extradite Julian Assange to the US—both for his own well-being & for the precedent it creates for journalism worldwide.”

I am known for being on the left of this Parliament, but this is not an issue that is confined to concerns among those on the left. For example, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has spoken in detail about the case and said recently:

“Sadly I do not believe Mr Assange will get a fair trial. This extradition treaty needs to be rewritten to give British and American citizens identical rights, unlike now.”

Others from the world of journalism who do not share my politics—people such as Andrew Neil and Peter Hitchens—have spoken out against the decision, which should concern us all.

It is important to reflect upon the fact that Amnesty International has not raised concerns about this issue lightly. The secretary-general of Amnesty International has labelled the case “Politically motivated and unjustified” and said that it

“undermines press freedom, the rule of law, and the prohibition of torture.”

Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of Journalists, to which I referred earlier, along with press freedom groups Article 19, Index On Censorship and the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, as well as our very own National Union of Journalists, issued a joint declaration, stating that Julian Assange

“is being prosecuted for exposing US rendition, unlawful killing and the subversion of the judiciary. And the UK government is allowing extradition proceedings to continue.”

The declaration makes the point that

“The prosecution of Julian Assange was a political decision taken by the Trump administration”,

and that it

“creates a dangerous legal precedent, allowing any journalist in Britain to be prosecuted and extradited.”

Even the executive editor of The Washington Post has felt compelled to comment on the case, saying that it is

“criminalising common practices in journalism that have long served the public interest.”

That should concern us all.

When we look at the extradition treaty that has been used to sign off the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States, we should be concerned about the fact that when it was brought to Parliament in the first place, assurances were given that the intention was to exclude extradition for political matters or for so-called political crimes. It was made clear in this place that that was the intention, so it seems to me and to others, including the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, that the spirit of that extradition treaty and the intention behind it have not been honoured by the Home Secretary’s decision to extradite Julian Assange.

At the end of the day, people have different views on Julian Assange as an individual—I view him as a hero who has exposed war crimes committed in our name; others take a different view—but people’s view of Julian Assange should not matter in relation to this issue. What matters is the implication for his human rights and the message that it sends to journalists around the world. If we believe in press freedom—as we do—and if we believe that journalism is not a crime and that exposing war crimes is not a crime, and if we want journalists to be able to practise their honourable trade without fear or favour, we should speak out against the extradition and speak out in favour of Julian Assange.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

We now come to the speeches from the Front Benchers. I call Steven Bonnar for the Scottish National party.