Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

Debate between Siobhain McDonagh and Ed Davey

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I completely agree, and local authorities need to look to themselves as well, because Ahmadis are also excluded from most SACREs— standing advisory councils on religious education—in English councils, so some of these things are very close to our respective homes.

The statistics on persecution against Ahmadis in Pakistan show that 260 Ahmadis have been killed and 379 have been assaulted for their faith, while 27 Ahmadi mosques have been demolished and 22 have been set on fire or damaged. Some 39 Ahmadi bodies have been exhumed after burial and 66 Ahmadis have even been denied a burial in a common cemetery—and all in a country with a constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Ahmadis in Pakistan live in constant fear that a baseless accusation will be made against them, with the consequences so often proving life threatening. This persecution is faced from cradle to grave, so I would like to describe the day-to-day reality for an Ahmadi living in Pakistan.

When a young Ahmadi in Pakistan attends school, they face immediate persecution. Take, for example, Farzana, a 15-year-old schoolgirl who gave Christian Solidarity Worldwide an honest and saddening insight. In her own words:

“A few of the children in my school knew that I am Ahmadi and what they did was to go and tell the other students, ‘She is Ahmadi, don’t play with her or eat with her, and stop treating her normally.’”

Her teachers encouraged this—this is what I find so hard to understand—and abused her, both physically and psychologically. Farzana says that they punished her, struck her with sticks and told her not to sit with the other kids because she is an Ahmadi and so is not allowed to do that. Farzana has now moved school as a result of her treatment. She has decided not to tell her new friends that she is an Ahmadi so that she is free from the persecution that she sees as inevitable.

Discrimination in education takes many forms, however, including nationalising all Ahmadi Muslim schools, expelling Ahmadi students based on their faith, and even the editing out of any Ahmadi Muslim’s contribution to Pakistan’s history. Take, for example, Professor Abdus Salam, a groundbreaking scientist famous for his work in the field of physics, for which he was awarded the first Nobel prize in Pakistan’s history. His faith has led to him being erased from the textbooks, which I remind the Chamber are rife with biases against religious minorities—and these are textbooks that we help to fund. There simply must be greater accountability by our Government and the Department for International Development to ensure that the vital educational projects that we fund continue, but without supporting intolerance, prejudice and hatred.

To return to Pakistan, an Ahmadi student may not even make it through education. In 2008, all Ahmadi students were expelled from a medical college in Faisalabad on the basis of their faith, while a local newspaper printed the headline, “We shall not allow admission in Rawalpindi Medical College of any student guilty of blasphemy”. For those young Ahmadis, their education and religion cannot co-exist side by side.

On leaving education, discrimination and persecution continue for Ahmadis in Pakistan when it comes to applying for a job. Even the rumour that someone may be an Ahmadi can destroy their opportunity of employment. For example, the civil and military services have placed restrictions on Ahmadis progressing to senior ranks.

Outside of work and education, the persecution for an Ahmadi in Pakistan is allowed to flourish in wider society. When an Ahmadi applies for a passport, they must state their religion by law. Anyone who self-identifies as a Muslim is required to take an oath declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslim. The reality, therefore, is that no Ahmadi can go to Mecca to perform the Hajj—one of the five sacred pillars of Islam. Nowhere else in the world are Muslims required to make such a declaration. How can a state be allowed to impose a religion on its citizens in that way?

For an Ahmadi in Pakistan, their persecution continues when they come to vote, which is particularly pertinent due to the upcoming elections in the country. An Ahmadi is prohibited by law to vote as a Muslim. They must either sign a declaration that they are not an Ahmadi or acquiesce to their status as non-Muslim, with a violation of that requirement punishable with imprisonment. That has effectively denied them the right to vote for nearly 40 years. What is more, the separate electoral list for Ahmadis is published and publicly available, enabling extremists to target, intimidate and harass the community. It is no wonder they face such persecution.

When legislators proposed reforms within the past year that could have changed the situation, outrage was sparked across Pakistan, prompting senior political and judicial figures to speak out, coupled with a mass violent rally. The reality, therefore, is that time is running out for an Ahmadi to be able to vote in Pakistan this summer.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

Is not the key point that Pakistan uses the state, the constitution and the law to persecute the Ahmadis, which is unique? Of all the horrors we know in Pakistan, the Ahmadi Muslims are singled out by the state and the constitution, which is why we should speak out loudly today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Davey]

That was a very helpful intervention, because the Minister brings the real issue to bear: our questions on what the Government might do. I understand that such issues need to be dealt with in private, and I am sure that we can take his reassurance that that is happening. I hope that he will focus on the issues of the constitution, and particularly issues of voting and democracy, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned, because it is outrageous that Ahmadi Muslims are prevented from voting in the normal way.

Three Ahmadi Muslims were sentenced to death last year: Mr Mubasher Ahmad, Mr Ghulam Ahmed and Mr Ehsan Ahmed. They are on death row. I know that the Government are clear—not only in Pakistan but elsewhere—about our opposition to capital punishment, but this is even worse because, in a sense, those people are on death row because of their faith and beliefs, which is abhorrent. I hope the Minister can indicate that the rights of such people are being considered.

We need to try to understand, both by talking to the Muslim community here in the UK and by talking to the Pakistani Government, how we can reduce this aggressive extremism, one of the outlets of which we are seeing in Pakistan. We see extremism and its impact in Pakistan and elsewhere through, for example, the Pakistani Taliban. We need to work out how we can reduce that extremism. We have already learned from the inquiry that this persecution is permitted by the state, but it is ubiquitous in Pakistani society, which is what I find most frightening.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most frightening thing to come out of our inquiry to date is the fact that younger people in Pakistan are more anti-Ahmadi than older people? In the west, we always expect the younger to be more liberal, but that is not currently the case in the Pakistan, and that is very frightening.

[Sir Edward Davey]

I absolutely agree, which is why I want to push the Minister a little further. Although I accept that sometimes we have to tread quietly on such issues, I am alarmed that the persecution of the Ahmadis is accelerating. Given the murders, the assaults and, as we saw last night, the attacks on mosques, there is a concern that this is becoming endemic and deep-rooted, particularly due to the textbooks that children are reading.

I do not want to go too far along this road, but what is happening to the Ahmadi Muslims will ring awful bells for those of us who have had the privilege to visit Auschwitz with the Holocaust Educational Trust to learn about the eight steps to genocide. Although we should not throw the word “genocide” around too freely, the UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect needs to do a study. This may not be something that comes and goes; it might be something that has potentially disastrous outcomes.

There is cross-party understanding about this, and we need to think quite deeply. I am not suggesting that the Government should do this, but I urge them to consider making it clear—perhaps quietly—that we have teeth.

Pakistan enjoys, through the UK and the EU, GSP+ trade advantages—it is one of I think 10 countries that do. When I was a Trade Minister, I campaigned against Sri Lanka getting GSP+ status because countries with that status are supposed to uphold UN and International Labour Organisation agreements and conventions. I do not think that Sri Lanka is in any way doing that in a number of areas, and nor is Pakistan.

If we look at the UN international covenant on civil and political rights, the UN international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, the UN convention on the rights of the child or the ILO convention concerning discrimination in respect of employment and occupation, it is difficult to see that Pakistan is abiding by the international conventions it has signed up to with respect to Ahmadi Muslims. These things need to be pointed out because, if we are to have an impact on the behaviour of the Government of Pakistan, we have to show that we are watching and monitoring them, and that we do not accept their behaviour.

There are things that we can do in this country. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned some of the hatred shown to Ahmadi Muslims, and we need the police and local authorities to understand that, and to be strong in preventing and tackling it where it occurs. There are Ahmadi Muslims in refugee camps around the world who have fled from Pakistan, and we are not taking enough of them into this country. That is a Home Office issue, but I ask the Minister to confirm that he will ask the Home Office whether this country can take in more Ahmadi Muslims who are sitting forgotten in refugee camps. Let us not forget them.

If we are to take anything from this debate, let us make some small steps that are under our control and let us revisit our guidance on how Home Office officials are trained to consider asylum applications by Ahmadi Muslims from Pakistan. Let us make sure there is proper guidance so that people understand what Ahmadi Muslims have to put up with in Pakistan.

As we have heard, there is a united approach on both sides of the House. We want to come together and say to the Government of Pakistan that this is unacceptable. We want to say to Ahmadi Muslims here in the UK and around the world, and particularly in Pakistan, that we stand with them, and that we will campaign for their rights, including their right to religious freedom and basic human rights. We will not rest until that happens.

Child Poverty: London

Debate between Siobhain McDonagh and Ed Davey

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I commend him for all the work that he does on child poverty. We might not all like targets, but they work.

The fundamental factor explaining London’s disproportionately high child poverty rates is the soaring cost and extreme shortage of housing. Across our capital there is a homelessness crisis, with 54,660 households in temporary accommodation, a figure that makes up 69% of the national total. Some 2,730 of those households are in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation, including 500 households with children who have been in B&Bs in London for longer than the six-week legal limit.

In my constituency I discovered a converted warehouse in the heart of one of south London’s busiest industrial estates. Connect House temporarily houses up to 86 homeless families with a car park as a playground and rooms so small that families sleep horizontally to all fit in a bed. Families have been placed there from across London, causing children to fall ill, miss school, and even to be found wandering lost around a working industrial estate at night. That is Dickensian, a disaster waiting to happen, and the reality of 21st-century child poverty in London.

The private rented sector—back to the earlier point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes)—is where children in poverty are most likely to live, with child poverty in private rents tripling in the past decade alone. That is unsurprising considering that the lowest quartile of rents in London are more than 150% higher than elsewhere in England. That means the average tenant in the capital spends a staggering half of their salary on rent. At my most recent advice surgery on Friday I met John, a married man in his 50s who spends 74% of his monthly income to fund the roof over his head: a one-bedroom flat that he shares with his wife and 11-year-old son. Can the Minister tell me how someone like John will ever be able to afford to save to own his own home, or how work provides John with a route out of poverty?

So what can be done about housing? Since 1939 the delivery of more than 200,000 homes a year in England has happened only in years when there have been major public sector house building programmes, and the last time that the Government target of 300,000 homes were built in one year in England was in 1969, when councils and housing associations were also building new homes. We urgently need to grant local authorities the right to build and the right to buy so that housing can be let to families on low incomes at social housing rents.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Her point on housing is extremely well made. Does she share my concern that some of the regeneration of estates in London is reducing the amount of social housing and that the opportunity to improve and increase social housing is simply not being taken in estate after estate across London?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I have a slightly different and perhaps more controversial view of redevelopments. I congratulate councils that try to deal with problems in difficult circumstances and come up with solutions that would not always be their first choice. In life, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, the way to make friends is to do nothing. Sometimes doing something makes you more enemies. I congratulate all the councils of whatever persuasion that are trying to do their best in really difficult circumstances.

A mechanism should be introduced so that any public sector site up for disposal has to be considered for the construction of social or mixed housing, including a substantial proportion that is social. Currently, public bodies tend to sell sites to raise money, not to provide homes. They often hide behind the requirement to obtain best value. For me and many Members here today, best value is the provision of homes for homeless or overcrowded families. How about building on the 19,334 hectares of unbuilt greenbelt land within a 10-minute walk of a London train station? It is not traditional greenbelt land. At no environmental cost, it is enough space for almost 1 million new homes in our capital.

It is not only extortionate housing costs that London faces, but living costs higher than anywhere else in England. In fact, nearly 40% of Londoners have an income below the amount needed to achieve a basic decent standard of living, with children the most likely to live below minimum income standards.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I am sure that as politicians we often live by our word, and I am extremely offended by the way we now use the word “affordable”. In housing terms, “affordable” means 80% of market rent. I suspect many of us here today could not manage to pay an affordable rent, let alone somebody on a low or median income in the capital. I would be grateful to find a way to ban the word “affordable” in this context.

[Sir Edward Davey]

Again, the hon. Lady makes a powerful point, along with her right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan). My wife is a social housing lawyer and she has a presentation on the meaning of “affordable” in Government policy and law. She has found 11 different definitions of affordability, so not only is it confusing—“affordable” often does not mean affordable—but it is completely absurd and we need to get back to the issue of social housing that the hon. Lady raised.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I wish to say this tactfully because I like the right hon. Gentleman a great deal. The problem and the definition of affordability at 80% market value goes back to the 2010 coalition Government. I do not wish to be mean; I simply wish to put that on the record.