Covid-19: Freedom of Religion or Belief

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Rosindell. I thank everybody who has made a contribution to the debate today. There have been some strong and powerful contributions.

I particularly commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate, alongside others. Although he is sadly absent today, he has always been a steadfast defender in this House of the right to religious freedoms. I also thank the hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Glasgow East (David Linden) for leading the debate today and for their contributions. I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and I commend the Bishop of Truro’s report on the persecution of Christians that was referenced in the recent debate.

As a Christian myself, I was drawn last night to the words of the Gospel of Matthew about our responsibilities to the poor and the persecuted, particularly at this time:

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’”

This is a most pertinent debate to have today, as we begin to understand the impacts of the Chancellor’s regretful breaking of the Conservative party’s manifesto promise and the commitment shared across this House, including by Members present, to 0.7% for international aid. The decision will have an impact on our work on crucial international issues, such as our work to protect freedom of religion or belief, and, more broadly, to support faith-based organisations and other non-religious but deeply ethically principled organisations in their work responding to the covid-19 pandemic and standing up for development, human rights and justice more broadly.

The hon. Member for Congleton particularly mentioned the situation for girls and for those persecuted around the world. We should reflect on the words of Malala Yousafzai, who was herself a victim of extremists in the Pakistan Taliban, who said this morning that she is deeply disappointed at the abandonment of the 0.7% target when a generation of girls are leaning on that support.

I spent yesterday speaking with a number of faith-based organisations and faith leaders working in South Sudan and Ethiopia. Their warnings were stark about the threats to peace, human rights and development in those two countries, with which we have had strong partnerships. They warned of famine, atrocities and disaster, on top of the impacts that covid-19 was already having on their communities.

I am sorry to say that it has been a deeply disappointing few months from the Government on these issues. Abolishing the Department for International Development already risked undermining UK leadership on freedom of religion and belief. As we know from a similar debate a few weeks back, the Prime Minister’s own special envoy on freedom of religion and belief, the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), resigned over the Government’s planned intention to break international law. Members do not have to take my word or the hon. Gentleman’s word for this. Earlier this year, the now former Minister of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Baroness Sugg, responded to a debate in the other place on freedom of religion and belief. She rightly and proudly listed the work of the Department for International Development with the John Bunyan fund, which had funded an Institute of Development Studies-led programme on building religious freedoms. She said DFID had a director-level champion on those issues and was working in Rohingya refugee camps, and in many more instances besides, and that

“prioritising freedom of religion or belief can save lives and prevent humanitarian disasters before they emerge.”

She also said that

“withdrawal of our overseas aid will obviously affect the persecuted minorities and the very poor, whom we are aiming to help.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 February 2020; Vol. 801, c. 1878.]

Ministers from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have spent the last month refusing to be drawn into discussing any specific spending commitments. Now we have had the Chancellor’s announcement, can the Minister tell us today which of the programmes supporting human rights, specifically on freedom of religion and belief, will be funded in the years ahead, and which will be cut? Beyond that, what role does the Minister see for faith-based organisations and other organisations of no religious principle but with deep ethical principles in our global development and human rights efforts?

Faith and religious communities have on the whole responded with responsibility, care and compassion to the pandemic at home and abroad. Responding to the Bishop of Winchester on 11 November, Baroness Sugg said faith groups

“have been incredible in their response to Covid-19. They are among the first to respond and can play an effective role in bringing about the behaviour change essential to slowing the spread of Covid and reducing infection and illness.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 1025.]

Across the Anglican communion—I declare an interest as a member of the Church in Wales—the impact of covid-19 on church life, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger), has been of the same order in the UK, with impacts on church buildings, the suspension of public worship, impacts on rites of passage, gatherings and so on. There has also been an impact on clergy. I know that will be felt by the leaders in many other faiths around the world. There is increased burn-out and stress as they seek to respond to the needs of their communities.

I have had some difficult conversations in my constituency with churches and other faith organisations, but—the hon. Member for Wakefield made some sensible points on this—there is a stark difference between what we see in this country and what we see abroad, from the wider threat of violence to the use of blasphemy laws. In many other countries, covid-19 restrictions have regrettably been manipulated to oppress religious minorities. Just a few weeks ago, in this place, we heard powerful examples of the persecution of Christians. That concern has been expressed by groups such as Open Doors and Christian Solidarity Worldwide. We have also seen antisemitism at the heart of many of the conspiracy theories about covid-19 in this country and abroad

In China, as we have heard, there is an ongoing attack on religious minorities by the Communist regime, including against Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, and other religious and non-religious minorities. Catholic bishops have disappeared. Temples, statues, mosques and churches have been destroyed under the Government’s direction. The Uyghur Muslim population is facing a monstrous Government-co-ordinated programme of police surveillance, enforced re-education, disappearances, internment and mass detention. We have even heard reports of forced sterilisation. Of course, 1 million Uyghur Muslims may have been living in camps since April 2017. The risks of that in relation to covid-19 are obvious.

The situation in India was mentioned, where Muslims are demonised by wild conspiracy theories that blame them for the spread of covid-19. Members of some Islamic movements were quarantined despite not having been at risk or having symptoms. In Pakistan, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for Glasgow East and for Wakefield, Christian and Hindu communities were denied food aid by organisations that stated that relief materials were only for members of a majority faith. We have seen attacks and discrimination against the Hazara minority and baseless allegations against them for being involved in the spread of coronavirus. The longstanding persecution of the Ahmadi population has continued in Pakistan and elsewhere.

Where prejudice existed before the pandemic, it has also had a significant impact on testing and tracing. In South Korea, where an outbreak occurred among members of one particular church, other members refrained from testing to avoid discrimination because they are seen as heretical by other Protestant South Korean churches. The Sufi religious community is persecuted in Iran. In Sri Lanka, the Muslim community’s rights on burial practices have been suppressed. The pandemic has affected rights and freedoms of the non-religious, too. Humanists International made some powerful points about the impact on the humanist movement, and the impact of lockdown on those being forced into religious practices when they hold no such religion and the impact that has had on them and their communities.

Labour stands firmly by our international human rights obligations, including on freedom of religion or belief. Everyone has the right to freedom of through, conscience and religion. The necessary restrictions in the UK because of the coronavirus pandemic have meant difficult times around Easter, Ramadan, the Jewish high holidays and Diwali. People are now thinking about how they might celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah in limited circumstances. We all face challenges, but in far too many places globally, necessary limitations have been superseded by discriminatory and oppressive measures, using public health to cover up persecution and the whipping up of hatred.

Like many others in this debate, I am a person of faith. My Christian beliefs very much underpin why I went into the humanitarian development sector before I came into this place. I want to return briefly to the point about the 0.7% commitment. I could not agree more with the Most Reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who described the move yesterday as “shameful and wrong.” I am reassured by the many Conservative and other Members who had the courage to speak out yesterday and today. This is an issue that transcends party politics. It is about right and wrong, and it is about Britain’s national interests.

It matters to this debate, too, because when we talk about a global Britain standing up for freedom of religion and belief and getting behind the incredible efforts of organisations of religious faith and non-religious principle—whether that is directly combating persecution, supporting persecuted communities or supporting communities with the material needs of those affected by conflict, gross poverty, inequality and now covid-19—it cannot just be about words.

Christians often turn to the story of the good Samaritan, but I am reminded of the words of Christ himself in the gospel of Mark, recounting the parable of the widow’s mite. He says:

“He sat down opposite the treasury and observed how the crowd put money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow also came and put in two small coins worth a few cents. Calling his disciples to himself, he said to them, “Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood.”

That is the example set by many faith and non-religious organisations worldwide. As a country, we cannot just be a fairweather friend to the persecuted and the poor when we have plenty. Britain is better than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Adams]

I understand where the hon. Member is coming from. This is a bigger point. This is not something that needs to be rushed. There will be a replacement, but by no means are we stepping back from our commitment to this role. We know how crucial it is for liaison with the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. However, the hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I cannot give a commitment on whether the appointment will be made this side of Christmas, however welcome that would be.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire is a long-time champion for freedom of religion or belief. He rightly highlighted a wide range of countries where there are serious concerns about the ability to worship freely. We will always condemn any form of discrimination. We will always raise our concerns directly with the countries. He focused on China and the Uyghur population. We are deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Xinjiang. We all know about the so-called re-education camps. Our diplomats have visited Xinjiang periodically to observe that situation, because first-hand access is not easy.

We have repeatedly taken an international role in holding China to account on the issue, including statements at the UN Human Rights Council in June and in the UN Third Committee last October. At the time, the UK was the only country to have led a joint statement at the UN. On 6 October, the UK and 38 other countries made a statement at the UN Third Committee in New York, expressing our deep concern about the situation in Xinjiang, including the mass detention of Uyghurs. This reflects our diplomatic leadership internationally, including the personal involvement of the Foreign Secretary, in raising the issue with a wide range of partners.

On 25 September, we devoted our item 4 national statement to human rights issues in China at the UN Human Rights Council. That was only the second time the UK has dedicated its national statement to a single country—the first time was in 2018, on Russia, following the Salisbury poisonings. In July, the Foreign Secretary raised Xinjiang directly with his Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister and State Councillor Wang Yi. I raised my concerns directly with the Chinese ambassador in March.

As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) spoke eloquently on a subject that is very close to his heart. His experience of the discrimination that he has suffered as an Ahmadi Muslim makes him uniquely placed to comment on these injustices. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) said, we all look forward to being able to worship to some degree in the UK after 2 December, in all places of worship. Collective worship is clearly preferable to services via Zoom, but that is a step in the right direction at least.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes also talked about his personal experience in Iraq. The suffering of Christians and many other groups in Iraq is a matter of serious concern. We are firmly committed to protecting members of religious minorities in Iraq and providing assistance on the basis of need, irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity. We have committed £261 million in humanitarian support to Iraq since 2014, which will provide a vital lifeline of food, shelter, medical care and clean water for the most vulnerable, including the Yazidi and Christian minorities. We have also contributed £23.15 million to the UN development programme funding facility for stabilisation, which works to restore vital services across liberated areas of Iraq, and is heavily committed to areas that are home to minority communities—principally, and historically, those are Christian areas.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) brings great experience in this area to his role as Opposition spokesman, and it is always good to see him across the Chamber in these debates. He rightly raised the issue of the reduction of the development assistance budget from 0.7% to 0.5%, but the pandemic has had a huge and severe impact on our economy, which has fallen to the worst levels in 300 years. That has forced us to take an incredibly tough decision to spend 0.5% of our national income on global poverty reduction next year, rather than the usual 0.7%. That was a very difficult decision to make, but it is a temporary one. We must protect the economy during the pandemic, but we intend to return to 0.7% as soon as possible.

Of course, we remain one of the most generous G7 donors: proportionately, we will spend more than the United States, Japan, Canada or Italy. In real terms, that means more than £10 billion to fight poverty, improve global health and achieve our UN sustainable development goals.

[Stephen Doughty]

I take the Minister’s sincerity, but those are political choices that the Government have made in breach of their own commitments. A lot of organisations, particularly those working on the crucial issues that we have debated, want some of the granular detail on which programmes will be cut, suspended, changed or altered. The Foreign Secretary just mentioned in the main Chamber that there will be another review over the next couple of months. When can we expect detail and confirmation of funding for the critical programmes that we have discussed?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman is right to ask. All aid will be focused on seven global challenges where we can make the most difference: covid and global health security; girls’ education; science, research and technology; conflict resolution; humanitarian preparedness and response; trade and economic development; and, of course, climate change and biodiversity. The Foreign Secretary will decide the allocation of aid to other Departments in line with those objectives. All the projects will be assessed through a new management process, led by the Foreign Secretary with input from Ministers about their geographic and departmental responsibilities. That will be laid out, although I hate to use this term, in due course. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Foreign Secretary’s commitment on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister has made that point, and the Foreign Secretary tried to do the same earlier. When they resort to such personal points, it reflects a Government in wider difficulties. The reality is that in 1997, ODA was at something like 0.21%, and by the end of the Labour Government it had come close to 0.6%. There was a steady increase throughout the period after the Thatcher Government, the Pergau dam scandal and many other things.

Rightly—and I have credited them for it—David Cameron, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and others stuck with the commitments and the increases, because there was cross-party consensus. It is a great regret that the Government, and the Chancellor in particular, have chosen to break that consensus. It is deeply regretted by many on the Minister’s side of the House, as he knows.

[Nigel Adams]

It is regretted right across the ministerial team, but such measures have been forced on us by the pandemic. It is a temporary measure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) made clear, Ethiopia has been a relative success story lately, but there is a real danger for the people of Ethiopia and he has highlighted the risks of spillover to Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea, which will be very damaging not only for people in the region, but for wider equities. As I say, I have spoken to regional leaders. I will speak to the Deputy Prime Minister of Ethiopia soon. Of course, we will be engaging with the Americans. I was in Berlin talking with the E3 and our European colleagues. We have expressed our concern, and we are doing everything we can to bring peace and a de-escalation of the conflict.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The war and famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s are seared into the memories of the British people and the world, and yet again we are on the brink of another tragedy for the people of that wonderful country: hundreds of civilians hacked to death, tens of thousands of refugees, hundreds of thousands cut off from assistance, women and children caught in the violence between rebels and a Government now threatening to shell a city. So can the Foreign Secretary say why it has taken until today for the United Nations Security Council to meet on this? What more are we doing to secure humanitarian corridors and access for independent human rights monitors? Does he not agree that this is another reason why it would be the wrong time to cut our 0.7% commitment to humanitarian assistance?

[Dominic Raab]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s horror at some of the reports of the civilian casualties. We take this incredibly seriously, energetically and actively at the United Nations. Let me reassure him that UK funding is already helping those in urgent need of assistance. In Ethiopia specifically, the UK funds the World Food Programme, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF and the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Nigeria: Sanctions Regime

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for introducing the petition today and all hon. Members for their incredibly powerful and passionate contributions on a crucial issue. I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), for his comments, and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Nigeria, my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who has done so much to speak out on the atrocities and, long before they happened, on the wider SARS movement and the brutality that it has exposed.

We have heard incredibly powerful speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), for West Ham (Ms Brown), for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) and for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), and indeed the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith). As has been pointed out, other hon. Members would have been here who have been speaking out equally powerfully on the issue.

I also thank the more than 200,000 individuals who have signed the petition and its creators, which includes many significant signatures from the Nigerian diaspora in the UK and many others who share deep concerns about what is happening in Nigeria and about wider human rights abuses around the world. This is not a country that will turn a blind eye when such atrocities happen. The scenes we have witnessed and the reports that have come out of Nigeria of the response by the police and the army against protesters in the #EndSARS movement have shocked us all.

We have heard from colleagues about the events of 20 October, when it appears a group of #EndSARS protesters were fired upon by members of the Nigerian army at the Lekki tollgate plaza, after the CCTV was taken down and the lights were turned off. That resulted in tragic deaths and injuries. I spoke to those who had been in the vicinity of those incidents, who saw and witnessed first hand the brutality meted out by SARS and those attempting to defend them. I can tell you, Mr Gray, that they were shocking testimonies. Many of us have witnessed the video footage and pictures of the events, which are absolutely horrific.

Despite having denied it for over a month, the Nigerian army has been forced to admit at the judicial panel inquiry that soldiers were deployed to the tollgate protest with both blank and live ammunition. As many hon. Members have pointed out, some of those protesters are still in detention today, and many others have had financial restrictions on them and other actions taken against them. I would be interested to know what assessment the Minister has made of the situation of those who were involved in those protests.

As hon. Members have explained, this massacre and the other atrocities that we have seen are part of a picture of brutality that has gone on over a number of years—extraordinary brutality and violations by the Special Anti-Robbery Squad, known as SARS. The report from Amnesty International documented 82 cases of human rights violations between January 2017 and May 2020, including various methods of torture against detainees such as hanging, mock execution, beating, punching and kicking, burning with cigarettes, waterboarding, near-asphyxiation with plastic bags, forcing victims into stressful bodily positions, sexual violence and rape.

That is a shocking record of behaviour, yet few of those cases have been investigated and hardly any officers have been brought to justice on credible accounts of torture and other ill-treatment. The authorities have promised investigations, but often they have not occurred. The Federal Government of Nigeria have repeatedly promised to reform SARS but have failed to do so. The recent protests originate not only in that record of brutality, but in other documented incidents across the country, in Delta and Oyo states. In recent days, I have received reports of extra-judicial killings, allegedly by the Nigerian army in Oyigbo in Rivers state. What assessment has the Minister made of the most recent reports? This is still carrying on after the shocking events we saw just a few weeks ago.

The violent repression of protesters in Nigeria is unacceptable and has rightly garnered international condemnation. President-elect Biden has called on the Nigerian Government to end the violent crackdown. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has said that Nigerians’ right to protest peacefully needs to be guaranteed and that police brutality needs to stop. The official Opposition absolutely agree with that sentiment. The violent crackdown on these protests must end and there must be accountability for those responsible for such brutality and loss of life.

The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), have made it clear that the UK must act as a force for good in the world, in line with our international partners and multinational organisations, whether the United Nations, the African Union, the UN Human Rights Council or others, to encourage and strongly advocate for the end of violence in Nigeria, to end police brutality in Nigeria and, crucially, to call for independent investigations into these violations by Nigerian policing, security and military forces. It would be better if we had confidence in the systems of investigation within Nigeria, but the ongoing failure and the record of the Nigerian Government in dealing with SARS underlines why many people do not have faith in that process. That is why independent investigations will be crucial.

The petition refers specifically to sanctions. The official Opposition welcome the Foreign Secretary’s establishment of a Magnitsky-style sanctions regime, which we have been calling for since 2018, to allow for targeted sanctions based on attacks on human rights, and to enable us to target the wider network of perpetrators, including all of those who facilitate, incite, promote or support such crimes. That extends beyond state officials to non-state actors, as well.

At that time, the Foreign Secretary told us in the House that those sanctions would be used to target

“those with blood on their hands.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 663.]

It is clear that individuals do have blood on their hands in relation to the activities of SARS and these atrocities over the past few months. Given the allegations against members of SARS and the growing evidence of the atrocities that were committed, we urge the UK Government to use their full investigative capacity, including by drawing on the evidence provided by independent human rights organisations in Nigeria and elsewhere, to identify individuals responsible for those atrocities and, if appropriate, designate them for sanctions under our Magnitsky regime. We cannot stand by in the face of such wilful perpetration of human rights violations and killings. Not least given our close political, economic and security relationship with Nigeria, we cannot be a disinterested or unconnected party.

I turn now to the UK’s role in relation to SARS. We have heard about this from a number of hon. Members in the debate. Despite initially denying it, the Minister for Africa has admitted that through the conflict, stability and security fund in Nigeria, SARS members were trained as part of the Nigeria policing programme and that the UK Government have been involved in training of members of SARS, despite that happening during a time when there were ongoing public, well-known allegations of extrajudicial executions, extortion, torture and rape by this unit. I am sorry to say that although this is shocking, it is not an entirely unexpected revelation to me. It is also not surprising—I have the review of the programme here—that this programme was led by the Foreign Office rather than the Department for International Development.

UK support for security and justice reform in countries around the world can have positive impacts, but what is absolutely obvious is that in a growing number of cases, it is not clear what impact we are having or whether, in the worst cases, we are actually supporting agencies that have a role in committing atrocities or human rights violations. What we are discussing today is just one example. Whether it is this example, the ongoing supplying of arms to the Saudi Arabian Government for use in the Yemen crisis or the training of the special investigation unit in Bahrain, which has been complicit in the torture of prisoners—of course, that country uses the death penalty—the UK Government are having to repeatedly come and justify their involvement with organisations and institutions that appear to breach our own standards, let alone international law and human rights.

Can the Minister tell me whether she has considered suspending support and training for such programmes for Nigerian security, military and justice institutions until she is absolutely satisfied that they are not supporting individuals and organisations that have been implicated in these atrocities, and will the Government commit to a review of the effectiveness of OSJA—overseas security and justice assistance—projects? It was extraordinary to find, while reading the summary, that the programme was listed as scoring an A and an A in 2018-19 and to read that the risk was only medium. That sounds completely out of kilter with the facts that we have heard today and have been hearing for many years.

Looking beyond Nigeria, given the deeply concerning news coming from locations across Africa in recent weeks, what measures are the Government taking to protect human rights across the continent and to tackle those responsible, whether it is those responsible for atrocities in Ethiopia, those who are involved in suppressing the democratic process in Tanzania and Uganda, or whoever? We cannot have impunity for those causing or carrying out atrocities or war crimes, whatever their role or status, whether that is official or unofficial—whether they are official Government forces, official military forces, or irregular forces who are acting on behalf of different groups, and whether those are central Government, regional government or rebel groups. It does not matter who they are—we cannot have impunity for the people who are carrying out these atrocities.

It appears to be a double irony that we are seeing support for wrong programmes like this one when the Government, we hear, are proposing to cut the right programmes; they are proposing to cut the 0.7% target and support to development and peace programmes across the world. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that that will not happen.

From the Black Lives Matter movement in the USA to the #EndSARS movement in Nigeria, it is clear that any democratic Government must respond to the needs first and foremost of their citizens in providing policing and security. They must be accountable to the people they serve and not hold themselves above the law. They must defend the law and conduct themselves in line with the principles and values that underpin it. We stand on the side of all those in Nigeria who are calling for peace, for democracy and for the rule of law to be upheld. Killings must end. Democracy and the rule of law must prevail, and the UK should be a partner to all Nigerians seeking peace, justice and development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I am grateful to the hon. Lady. As I said, I am sure the Minister for Africa will be following the debate. I will make a few more comments about sanctions, but if the hon. Lady will bear with me, I want to answer a few more of the other questions.

I reiterate that it is long-standing practice not to speculate on our future sanctions, as it could reduce the impact of those sanctions. Right hon. and hon. Members raised the issue of corruption; I agree that tackling corruption in Nigeria is absolutely critical to the country’s prosperity and security, and to reducing poverty and inequality. Work is under way to consider how a global corruption sanctions regime could be added to the Government’s armoury.

Several Members gave examples of intimidation that had been highlighted to them, and we are aware that some protestors have reported facing intimidation. The British high commissioner in Abuja continues to raise our concerns about the intimidation of civil society groups and peaceful protestors with the Nigerian Government, because it does not build an environment for groups and protestors to come forward and help build genuine accountability. I can assure Members that we are aware that some protestors face intimidation.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and others raised the matter of UK aid. I reassure her that no UK taxpayers’ money goes directly to the Nigerian Government. The UK provides assistance to Nigeria to meet immediate humanitarian needs, and to address long-term structural issues. While I am on the topic of aid, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) tried to tempt me to speak about the Government’s commitment to spending 0.7% of GDP on aid. As I am sure he anticipated, I will not speculate ahead of any spending review.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Minister elaborate on that? I appreciate that she is not the Minister for Africa, and that she will be less familiar with the specific programmes, but it was very clear in the Minister for Africa’s letter to us that the UK Government were funding training programmes that directly involved SARS, despite the allegations. Does she not believe there is a problem with our wider security and justice assistance programmes across the world? There is example after example of their impact being questioned, or, worse still, of our being implicated in some way when organisations do not uphold our standards.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts part of my notes, as I will touch a little more on the SARS programme, and I hope to give a bit more detail about work that we are doing and supporting.

Before I come to that, I want to note quickly that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet raised the issue of the persecution of Christians. That is another important topic, and I reassure her that we have made clear to the Nigerian authorities, at the highest levels, the importance of protecting civilians, including Christians, and human rights for all Nigerians.

I will now discuss the Special Anti-Robbery Squad. The UK supports police and justice reform in Nigeria. All assistance is compliant with our human rights obligations and values. Through our Nigeria policing programme, funded by the conflict, stability and security fund, which ended in March 2020, federal Special Anti-Robbery Squad officers participated in training on amended Nigerian police guidance designed to improve human rights, training on public finance, and community policing workshops. The Nigeria policing programme was part of our security and justice reform programme, which is working to help to deliver a criminal justice system that will better protect the human rights of all Nigerians.

As a result of the programme, relationships between communities and the police improved in four states. Trust was built, with communities and the police working together to resolve safety and security issues. The Nigerian police force’s recent adoption of the community policing framework developed by the Nigeria policing programme is a positive outcome. Our support to civil society was instrumental in the President recently passing the Nigeria Police Act 2020, which provides for greater citizen protections and improved police training, which we believe will benefit Nigerians.

Through the CSSF-funded north-east public safety and security programme, part of which is delivered jointly with USAID, radio equipment was issued to Borno police command. That was for police units working to improve local security, and to counter violent extremist organisations, including Boko Haram and Islamic State in West Africa. Borno police command distributed free radios to the local FSARS unit, which were returned after FSARS was disbanded. The north-east public safety and security programme is part of our north-east Africa security, conflict and stabilisation programme, working to help to stabilise one of Nigeria’s poorest and most fragile regions, affected by Boko Haram and Islamic State in West Africa.

I acknowledge and understand the strength of feeling in the House and among the public. The UK and Nigeria have a long and close relationship that extends beyond our Governments to our people, especially through the British Nigerian diaspora community, which contributes so much to this country. The diaspora was also mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. The UK is home to more than 200,000 members of the Nigerian diaspora, who contribute much to the country. As I am sure you will be aware, Mr Gray, my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), was the first British Nigerian Minister.

As to communications and engagement with the diaspora, on 18 November my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa led a virtual business roundtable with members of the Nigerian diaspora business community, the better to understand challenges in increasing trade and investment between the UK and Nigeria. That roundtable was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who is the UK trade envoy to Nigeria, and the British deputy high commissioner in Lagos. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet asked about requesting a meeting with the Minister for Africa, and it would perhaps be wrong of me to commit him to that, but I can certainly pass on her request.

This Government will continue to press the Nigerian Government and their security services to uphold human rights and the rule of law; to investigate all incidents of brutality, illegal detentions and the use of excessive force; and to hold those responsible to account. We will closely monitor the judicial panels of inquiry, and will continue to advocate for investigations of police brutality. The Government will consider their options as the panels’ work progresses.

The Government will also continue to work with the Nigerian Government, and international and civil society partners, to improve the accountability and transparency of the Nigerian police, for the benefit of all Nigerians.

Sexual Abuse and Exploitation

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for securing this crucial debate. It was a real pleasure to serve with her on the Select Committee on International Development, and I commend that Committee and its excellent Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), as well as her predecessor, Stephen Twigg, for their consistent and relentless attention—particularly that of the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire—to these crucial issues over many years. We have heard some excellent contributions today, from the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall)—I know he said he was not distinguished, but I thought it was an excellent and absolutely sincerely meant contribution—as well as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), and of course the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as well as the spokesperson for the SNP, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson).

Consistent attention to this issue is absolutely crucial, because as we have heard today, simply investigating and responding in a reactive way to each incident in an isolated fashion is not, and will never be, good enough. I regret to say that these issues have been and are systemic, and not just in the aid sector, among international aid agencies, or among private sector contractors working in international development or peacekeeping. They are systemic in all contexts where vulnerable people exist and, crucially, where there are power imbalances, not least gender-based power imbalances, imbalances that exist between donors and recipients, or those that exist between so-called protectors and the people they are supposed to be protecting.

This is a crucial point because, as many of the Members who have spoken today have said, we have to recognise that predators and abusers actively seek out the vulnerable, and usually manipulate and take advantage of such systemic, specific power imbalances. We know this from decades of our own experiences, domestically as well as internationally. Whether in parts of the Church, among celebrities, in sport, in the media or with looked-after children, we have seen those tactics used to find and exploit victims. It is absolutely right, as has been done, to highlight environments of conflict, extreme poverty and distress as particularly vulnerable environments with vulnerable individuals, and I have seen those myself around the world.

I think of one of the first visits I paid to Malawi when working in the NGO sector, when I went to a World Food Programme feeding station that was responding to food shortages in southern Malawi. I was 25 years old. I was taken to a village where hundreds of people were queuing up to receive their assistance from the WFP, yet they had to wait for their food while I was sat on a chair, in front of everybody else sitting in the dust, for me to give a speech. I was taken aback by that, but unfortunately it is the culture that exists: me as a 25-year-old white man, sitting there on a chair while other people sat in the dust, waiting for their food. In those first experiences, it was clear to me how such a situation can turn into one where there is abuse, imbalance and misuse of power.

The resolute and consistent cross-party action of the International Development Committee in pursuing these issues underpins the Committee’s value and why, in scrutinising our official development assistance, our role in these matters is crucial. I hope the Committee or one similar will continue to scrutinise our official development assistance budget. I urge the Minister to consider that point, which has had support from across the House.

I have seen NGOs, peacekeepers and others do huge good around the world but, I am sorry to say, this is not the first time I have had to speak on these issues. As a former staff member of Oxfam and World Vision, I was utterly horrified by what I heard was happening in Haiti. At the time, I said:

“I completely share the horror and revulsion about the revelations…I feel let down. I know that many current Oxfam staff members feel completely let down, too, both by the actions of those who carried out these terrible incidents and by the failure to deal with them”.—[Official Report, 20 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 53.]

That is absolutely crucial.

Some years later, I was horrified to hear of another example. I will not read out the name of the individual at the heart of the allegations in Haiti, not least because I cannot pronounce it, but also because he does not need his name repeated. I spoke to a former civil servant for the Department for International Development, who said that that man was well known throughout the sector and had moved from agency to agency before ending up in that situation with Oxfam.

That is a tragedy, because organisations mentioned today such as World Vision have led work internationally on these matters. One of the first issues I worked with them on was tackling the loophole that allowed paedophiles to travel to south-east Asia to abuse children. World Vision did incredible work on that, so it is a great tragedy for me that some of the organisations that have led in the fight to protect vulnerable people find these problems in their own organisations.

We have heard many excellent contributions and recommendations today, which I wholeheartedly endorse on behalf of the official Opposition. I hope the Minister will explain what progress has been made on working globally with others to implement the recommendations that the Committee has made in its several reports, not least in the light of new allegations in relation to the DRC.

I want to highlight a particular recommendation that the IDC made in its report. We cannot have platitudes, as the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire said. It is simply not good enough. The Committee said:

“Whilst we recognise the value of developing best practice guidance and ensuring that it is widely available, we learned from our initial SEA inquiry that the existence of good guidance is only valuable to the extent that it is followed in practice.”

The Committee also warned:

“Voluntary self-regulation of safeguarding standards allows failures on sexual exploitation and abuse to slip through the cracks: in our view the case for an independent ombudsman remains strong.”

I want to highlight another area from the IDC report, which said:

“Protection for whistle-blowers should form part of all frameworks for reporting sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment of both beneficiaries and staff.”

Insufficient attention is being given to these issues. The protection of whistleblowers and the freedom of people to come forward and speak out on these issues is crucial. I wonder how the Minister will respond to those key points.

The New Humanitarian and Thomson Reuters Foundation recently exposed shocking reports regarding the DRC. They have horrified hon. Members across the House. The investigation was released in September and refers to 51 women who have accused aid workers of sexual exploitation and abuse during the Ebola response in the DRC. Organisations involved, allegedly, include the World Health Organisation, World Vision, UNICEF, the Alliance for International Medical Action, Oxfam, Médecins sans Frontières and the International Organization for Migration.

Many of those accounts were backed up by aid agency drivers and local NGO workers, exposing multiple incidents of alleged abuse. Given the number and similarity of the accounts from the women in the eastern city of Beni—one of the epicentres of Ebola—it is likely that the abuse was widespread, but the investigation only focused on Beni. We have to accept that in these situations we are not getting the full picture of what has been going on.

I do not need to further detail the stories, which have already been mentioned, of women being plied with drinks, ambushed in offices and hospitals, some being locked in rooms by men who promised jobs or threatened to fire them if they did not comply, and, of course, forced pregnancies as a result of abuse. It is absolutely extraordinary. Men from countries including Belgium, Burkina Faso, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, France and Guinea were named as abusers. Many women were afraid to come forward and speak out about their experiences.

With the shadow International Development Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), I wrote to the agencies implicated in that response. I am sorry to say that we have not heard back from many of them, but I commend Oxfam and World Vision for responding very robustly and rapidly. Oxfam pointed out in particular that it has now joined the inter-agency misconduct disclosure scheme, which aims to highlight perpetrators. But again I have to ask: is that working? We see these platitudes in these letters; we see these warm words. What is the reality on the ground? These examples keep happening again and again. We asked some extremely tough questions and we will continue to do so.

Oxfam also pointed out research that it was doing that had uncovered a range of aspects that prevent people from coming forward. It pointed out the issues of people not being willing to speak in certain country contexts, preferences about the way to report incidents and so on. I am not sure that that needs research. A lot of it is absolute common sense and blatantly obvious to anybody who has looked at these examples. We need to see less dilly-dallying and dithering by agencies. We need to see action on the ground, and the Government need to be supporting that.

I have some questions for the Minister, not least about the response of the FCDO itself. People may think that the issue is just aid agencies, peacekeepers or others, but unfortunately Governments and international agencies are also involved. Therefore, although we welcome the change to the new FCDO terms and conditions and human resources policies to ensure that sexual relationships between staff and beneficiaries and partners are considered unacceptable and will be treated as potential gross misconduct by the FCDO, can the Minster explain who is included within that category of staff and whether the same treatment will be applied to all staff who are contracted to Departments that are spending UK official development assistance? Is the FCDO providing adequate funding to ensure that safeguarding is at the heart of our ODA programmes with agencies, contractors and multilateral agencies?

Then there is armed forces training. The Minister will know that we give a lot of support to, for example, peacekeepers. Will he explain what is happening on that and how we are ensuring adherence to the highest standards in those we are training? Given that there needs to be co-ordination, will he also explain how the Government are looking at monitoring individuals as they move between organisations? That is one of the crucial issues that have come to light.

In conclusion, we must accept that there is a systemic problem. We have to drive systemic and cultural change within organisations in the sector and ensure that there is prevention, not just reaction.

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) not just for securing this debate, but for having been a passionate voice in this area for a considerable time, and long before this issue was in the broader public consciousness. I will go through some of the UK Government’s actions, but I think that one reason why we find ourselves in a leadership position on this is that there have been voices such as my hon. Friend’s, which have been making this case for far longer than others.

I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for her chairmanship of the Select Committee and to the members of that Committee, who have pursued with alacrity this incredibly important issue.

I thank all those hon. Members who have made contributions today. We all joke about how Westminster Hall is a much better debating place than the main Chamber of the House of Commons, but with this debate it has been shown once again that, sometimes, difficult and challenging questions can be asked in good faith, with a desire to bring about positive change, rather than just as a short-term political stick to beat each other with across the aisle. I will respond as much as I can to the points that have been made.

Sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment are completely unacceptable, especially in a sector whose purpose is to help the most vulnerable. My concern sometimes is that these stories are used by critics of ODA spending as an excuse for the UK to withdraw from its international commitments. I will say this clearly: no, it is a reason for us to work harder to address these issues rather than to step away from them.

In 2018, the aid sector’s failure to tackle sexual exploitation came into sharp relief, and it has been raised by a number of people today. We now realise—indeed, it is very clear—that it was far from an isolated incident. That has been reinforced today. The hon. Member for Rotherham highlighted the pernicious cocktail of attitudes that are, unfortunately, if not prevalent, then certainly not isolated in the aid sector, and that lead some people to believe that the people they are meant to be helping are somehow lesser than them.

The case is therefore clear: we must do more to drive up safeguarding standards, and we must act quickly. Inevitably, there will be a power and wealth imbalance in the sector that we are talking about, but we must never accept the inevitability that that should lead to sexual exploitation and abuse.

Since 2018, the UK has spearheaded work to tackle sexual misconduct in the aid sector. We launched a £10 million multi-year initiative with Interpol to identify and stop perpetrators from working in the sector and, with a UK commitment of £10 million, we developed tools to help organisations with their safeguarding. The misconduct disclosure scheme, backed by the UK, prevented at least 36 people with track records of sexual misconduct from being employed by NGOs in 2019. Following wide consultation, we have designed a new multi-million-pound programme of support to survivors and victims. We will provide further details in 2021.

Yet cases still occur far too frequently, as we have seen in the horrific reports from the DRC, and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is absolutely right that we have to assume that that is just the tip of the iceberg. Reporting has increased—which perversely, I suppose, is a positive sign. We know that there has been, as is often the case with sexual abuse, huge under-reporting, both domestically and internationally.

Tackling sexual misconduct is a priority for the UK Government. In September, we published our first aid sector safeguarding strategy. The UK is pushing for change in three areas. First is sector-wide change. The UK is providing global leadership to tackle the issue from the top. The Prime Minister is a member of the UN Secretary General’s Circle of Leadership to prevent and end sexual exploitation and abuse. The UK brings together donors, NGOs, the United Nations and others to ensure a coherent international approach. We adhere to global standards on sexual misconduct and require our partners to do the same. In 2019, we helped to write and signed the OECD Development Assistance Committee’s recommendations on the issue, with 29 other DAC members.

Organisational change within the UK Government is our second priority; that means a comprehensive look at our own cultures and practices. We have sent a clear message out to all staff that safeguarding is a responsibility for everybody, and we hope that will alleviate the challenge of where victims have to report to their abusers. At the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, that includes a clear statement in our staff code of conduct that sexual exploitation and abuse based on power imbalances, including paying for sex—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire is absolutely right; I will not describe that as prostitution, because that is not what it is: it is abuse—is gross misconduct. All ODA-spending Departments have signed up to that language.

Thirdly, we want to raise standards among those who deliver UK programmes overseas. We have strengthened our due diligence assessments and aligned the safeguarding language in our multilateral funding agreements with other donors, clearly setting out our collective expectations. Reaching our standards can be a challenge for some small grass-roots organisations, so the UK has created the resource and support hub to help build up their safeguarding capabilities. Some might argue that we are not tough enough and should cut funding to all organisations where any allegations occur. Our concern is that that would introduce a perverse incentive to cover up the very issues that we need to see more of.

[Stephen Doughty]

Does that apply to all staff in all Departments spending ODA and all those contracted to those Departments? That is important.

[James Cleverly]

On the language that I used about gross misconduct, the t’s and c’s of the FCDO can apply only to the FCDO, but all ODA-spending Government Departments have agreed with the wording underpinning that. All Departments signed up to the language in the UK strategy. It is about trying to ensure that we do not introduce perverse incentives that would drive the issue back underground, as we have seen before.

Regrettably, safeguarding cases will still occur from time to time. However, we collectively work to reduce the risk, and we will not tolerate a lack of effort or action. That is why we require our partners to do all they reasonably can to prevent sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment and to respond sensitively to the victims and robustly within organisations. We will not fund partners who do not reach those standards.

Let me end by saying that more needs to be done. Sadly, we have heard that this issue will be an enduring challenge, and the UK will remain at the forefront. We will place the rights, needs and wishes of victims and survivors and the centre of our response. The UK strategy sets out four commitments for all Departments delivering UK aid: we will continue to provide global leadership; we will hold ourselves to the same high standards that we expect of others; we will transform the aid sector so that everybody is treated with dignity and respect; and we will hold ourselves to account through transparent reporting and external scrutiny. Safeguarding against sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment is everybody’s responsibility, and the Government will continue to lead the way on this issue.

Persecution of Christians and Freedom of Religion or Belief

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank everybody for their incredibly strong and passionate contributions, as I would expect from the Members present. I commend the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for securing the debate and for his work as the Prime Minister’s special envoy. I am sorry that he had to resign.

I thank the Bishop of Truro for his work and all the organisations, many of which have been named, for the work they have done in bringing attention to many of these instances of persecution, particularly against Christians, around the world. I declare an interest as a Christian, and as someone who worked previously with Open Doors and a number of other organisations to highlight such cases, including working with Christians on the Left within my own party.

It is, of course, disappointing that it has been a month since the resignation of the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham and the Government are yet to appoint a special envoy. I hope that the Minister can give us some news on that, because it is crucial and relates to at least four of the recommendations in the report of the Bishop of Truro. It is vital that we get that work back up and going, but I know that the hon. Member will continue to be a strong voice on these issues.

The Bishop of Truro said very clearly at the start of the report:

“Across the globe…Christians are being bullied, arrested, jailed, expelled and executed. Christianity is by most calculations the most persecuted religion of modern times. Yet Western politicians until now have been reluctant to speak out in support of Christians in peril.”

We have seen the opposite today. Many of us are willing to speak out on these issues, and I know that many others across the House are not afraid to do so either and that they will also continue to speak up for those facing persecution.

Sadly, there are far too many circumstances to mention them all, but I will focus on a number. I will start by talking specifically about the situation for Christians in Nigeria, but given the events overnight, with your leave, Mr Hollobone, I will briefly mention the shocking scenes of brutality and violence at the Lekki toll plaza. I hope that the Minister can share the Government’s response to those shocking scenes, not least because of our strong relationship with Nigeria and its military and security forces. Amnesty has said that there is credible evidence of excessive use of force leading to the deaths of protesters. The action has been condemned by the former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, so can the Minister tell us whether he and his colleagues will be urgently speaking with the Nigerian high commissioner and their counterparts in the Nigerian Foreign Ministry? It is crucial that they do so, given the horrific scenes overnight.

I want to draw attention particularly to the concerns in Nigeria for Christians. We have heard from Christian Solidarity Worldwide of 50,000 Christians in southern Kaduna state having to flee violence. We have heard from a number of Members, including through the work of the APPG and the report that was mentioned, of the violence between Fulani herders and settled farming communities. In 2019, 1,000 Christians were killed. The International Crisis Group has pointed to more than 300,000 people being displaced, and, of course, Nigerian human rights organisations have also been speaking out, saying that in 2015 up to 12,000 Christians were killed, with 350 deaths in just the first two months of 2020.

There is also alarming persecution of religious minorities by elements of the Nigerian state. There have been arbitrary arrests of both Christian and humanist figures. For example, Professor Solomon Musa Tarfa was detained in Kano state, as was Mubarak Bala from the Nigerian Humanist Association, whose case I have raised regularly with the Minister for Africa, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge).

There are many other worrying circumstances beyond those in Nigeria. We have heard about the circumstances of the Muslim Rohingya minority and the persecution they face at the hands of the Myanmar authorities, and about the situation for Rohingya Christians. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) talked about that. There are approximately 1,500 Rohingya Christians and they report that they have faced threats and violence in camps, including an attack in January this year when a group of men attacked 22 Christian families, vandalised homes, looted personal property and smashed up a makeshift church and school.

Of course, we have also seen attacks across the middle east. We have heard about the persecution of Coptic Christians and the destruction of churches in Egypt. In Algeria, there is an ongoing campaign of church closures against the Protestant Church of Algeria, which serves the Berber population—13 churches have been closed over the past three years. We have heard about the situation in Iran, where only Shi’a Muslims are allowed to hold key political positions and there are continued attacks on people who change or renounce their religious beliefs. Atheists, too, are affected. Many people whose religious beliefs differ from those of the extraordinarily repressive regime in Iran are at risk of arbitrary detention, torture and the death penalty.

We have also heard about the situation in Pakistan, where the blasphemy laws still carry the mandatory death penalty and violate fundamental rights to the freedom of expression, thought, conscience and religion. Rather than moving away from such violations, there has been an increase in attacks. Many individual cases are of deep concern to the organisations that have been speaking out so powerfully on behalf of individuals, individual churches and others who have been affected.

There is also the situation in Sri Lanka, with the horrific attacks that we have just been marking. Those scenes have utterly shocked the world. The situation has also worsened in places that have not been drawing attention, such as Mozambique. The situation in the north of that country is deeply worrying. Recently, monks in the north of the country have been forced to flee across the border to Tanzania after an attack on their monastery in the district of Cabo Delgado. The deeply worrying rise in extremism there is, I am afraid to say, little noticed by the outside world.

There are so many examples of religious persecution that it is difficult to do them justice. Organisations have been highlighting such atrocities. I mentioned the specific Christian organisations, but organisations such Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and many others have also been leading efforts to draw attention to the circumstances and to urge Governments around the world to act.

We heard about the situation with the Chinese Communist party, including from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), who is no longer in his place. The so-called sanitisation of religion, which was pushed by Premier Li at the National People’s Congress in March 2018, has been on show and affects not only Christians but other religious minorities, including Muslims, Buddhists and Taoists, and other non-religious groups. The week-long disappearance of Catholic Bishop Shao Zhumin from Guangzhou diocese in Zhejiang was also very worrying. There is also the case of Guo Xijin in Fujian province. When he fled state custody and went into hiding, having refused to bring his church under the Government-run Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, the authorities in the diocese of Mindong began closing churches, installing surveillance cameras and evicting priests who refused to be brought under official control.

Of course, we cannot have this debate without mentioning the absolutely shameful and disturbing atrocities that are being perpetrated against the Uyghur population in Xinjiang, who are facing a monstrous Government-co-ordinated programme of police surveillance, enforced re-education, disappearances, internment and mass detention. There are even shocking reports of forced sterilisation.

Having heard the powerful contributions made today, I want to put a few questions to the Minister. Obviously, the Government have enacted a number of the Bishop of Truro’s recommendations, including the launching of the John Bunyan fund, but there have been cuts to official development assistance budgets as a result of the decline in gross national income, and we believe there are cuts that go beyond that. Can the Minister confirm what cuts will be happening and to what extent there will be ongoing funding for the John Bunyan fund and work will continue to focus on tackling persecution of religious minorities? Will specific country programmes in some of the contexts that we have mentioned today face the chop? I certainly hope not, because that work is absolutely vital.

Recommendation 18 in the Bishop of Truro’s report talks about a standard FORB scale of persecution. It would be incredibly beneficial to have a clear scale of escalation, so that the Government and others could formulate common approaches in advocating for persecuted Christians, especially in the very worst cases and situations.

The freedom and right to believe and worship as one chooses, without threat of attack or sanction, whether legal, financial, social or physical, is one of the most fundamental rights that we hold, but too often and in too many places, we see both governmental and non-governmental actors using division, hatred, sectarianism and persecution to advance their agendas, bolster support and eradicate dissent and freedom of thought. The UK must stand boldly against such egregious abuse of human rights. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government will be expanding their work to uphold freedom of religion and belief for all.

These freedoms are guaranteed by some of our most fundamental human rights global commitments: article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, article 18 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, and the declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief. There is of course a crucial UN special rapporteur on these issues. There is the UN Human Rights Council. Perhaps the Minister can say how we will be using our seat on the UN Human Rights Council to push these agendas forward.

Of course, all of this is underpinned by the UK remaining committed to the very highest standards of human rights, to the rule of law and to a proactive role in global human rights bodies. I am sorry to say that we have seen some drawing back from that in recent years. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that that will not be the case, that these programmes will continue to be funded and that he and his colleagues will continue to use their full diplomatic muscle for global Britain to advance the case of persecuted Christians worldwide.

Sudan

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I commend the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) not only for securing this crucial debate, but for the leadership and commitment that she has shown over many years to secure peace and justice in Sudan, not only in her tenure as the Minister for Africa but now as the chair of the all-party group on Sudan and South Sudan. I declare an interest as a long-standing member of that all-party group and as someone who has spoken over many years on Sudan and South Sudan, including in my time before I was elected to Parliament when I worked for World Vision and Oxfam. I also have a significant Sudanese diaspora in my constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth who have regularly raised concerns, particularly during the turbulent times that we have seen recently.

I also worked with our former colleague, Jo Cox, along with the former Prime Minister David Cameron and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), to highlight many of the atrocities occurring in Darfur many years ago. We took them out to Sudan and Jo showed them at first hand the reality facing the people in Darfur at that time. The contributions to the debate, including from the hon. Members for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), show that the House stands united in support for the Sudanese people and the work that they are doing to secure a new future of prosperity and justice under a civilian-led Government. We have had some very informed contributions.

The Khartoum massacre in June last year was a sickening display of arbitrary violence wielded against peaceful protesters by the then security forces and the transitional military council. It was an unprovoked attack on protestors, who were acting peacefully in calling for a transition to civilian-led government. It was a violent and bloody attack on the Sudanese people’s rights to freedom of assembly, expression and political activity, and it was rightly condemned by the UK Government and the United Nations. Although there are conflicting reports on the exact number of people who lost their lives or were injured—not least due to the internet blackout and other restrictions—Amnesty International has shown that over 100 people could have been killed and more than 700 injured. There was indiscriminate use of live ammunition, tear gas, whips and sticks, and there are disgusting reports of sexual violence against women and men. Again, can the Minister give us details on what the Government are doing to support the inquiry into the atrocities that have been reported?

Unfortunately, torture, arbitrary arrest, physical and sexual violence and rape are the ghastly tools of oppression that have been used by Sudanese security forces in the past, both before and after the overthrow of President al-Bashir. Conflict and attacks have been endemic for the past 20 or 30 years, most notably in the Darfur genocide, but also in the other conflicts that we have seen. The rapid support forces, the national intelligence security services and other militia groups, including those referred to as the Janjaweed, have enacted violence and repression in multiple scenarios. They were also believed to be participants in the Yemeni civil war, and they are suspected of war crimes by Human Rights Watch.

Obviously, the decisions on al-Bashir and whether a trial takes place at the International Criminal Court are ongoing. I want to point out that one of the Janjaweed leaders, Ali Muhammed Ali Abd-Al-Rahman, is subject to arrest for atrocities allegedly committed in Darfur. He has surrendered in the Central African Republic and is due to attend hearings in The Hague. It would be useful to hear the Minister’s views on that case.

The physical, medical and psychological impact of the attacks on the civilians of Sudan is immeasurable. As the historic Juba peace agreement moves Sudan forward towards an inclusive, open and democratic civilian-led Government, the crimes of the past must not go unpunished, and the victims of the attacks must receive justice. The Sudanese Government should facilitate investigations and justice, including ascertaining the full facts of what occurred in the massacre last year and in other attacks over the recent decades, and providing support to people who have faced physical and sexual violence. I hope the UK Government will give their full support to those effective justice processes for people who have been affected.

Although the massacre and attacks have marred so much of the revolution in Sudan, the Juba peace agreement is a historic achievement and a significant reward for the persistence and commitment of the Sudanese people. By bringing rebel groups into the governing council, into the Ministry and into the transitional council, the agreement has rightly put reconciliation and co-operation at the heart of the transition process. I hope that the Minister can explain what the UK is doing to support the implementation of the agreement and to ensure that there is not impunity for the people who have been involved in crimes against humanity, genocide and other human rights abuses over past decades.

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

The Juba peace agreement also deals with the return of more than 2 million Darfuris to their homes and villages. As the hon. Member for West Worcestershire pointed out, the joint UN and African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur will finish at the end of this month, leaving the protection of civilians entirely in the hands of the Sudanese armed forces. Given the attacks that have historically taken place against the Sudanese people, there are understandable fears, so I hope the UK will use its position on the UN Security Council to push the United Nations to fulfil its responsibilities to the people of Sudan, and to work with the new Government in Sudan to ensure that there is appropriate protection. Hon. Members have made the point that other groups, particularly Christians, have been targeted in the past. I, too, have worked with Open Doors, and I commend its reports about the situation for Christians and other religious minorities.

Political transitions are always precarious, and the violence in recent years makes the situation in Sudan even more so, but added to the mix are significant economic and development challenges. As we have heard, Sudan is dealing with the worst flooding that it has experienced in decades. The number of people at risk of contracting water-related diseases has doubled from 5.6 million in April of this year to more than 10 million now, with water sources facing biological contamination. There have also been agricultural losses. It is estimated that 1 million tonnes of crops have been damaged and hundreds of thousands of heads of livestock belonging to tens of thousands of households have been lost. We have also heard about the locust infestations in many regions across east Africa, but the impact in Sudan and South Sudan in particular is serious.

As in all countries across Africa recently, we have heard in the past few days worrying reports from the World Health Organisation and the African Union on increasing cases of covid-19, and Sudan, too, has been affected—in both the primary effect and the secondary impact of diverting efforts from tackling other diseases. Deaths have fallen in Sudan, but this is an ongoing situation that the UK Government and others will have to keep closely on top of. Will the Minister help by outlining what support and changes to Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office programmes are going on in relation to Sudan, in particular in response to the flooding and agricultural damage?

The hon. Member for West Worcestershire was right to point out the situation with regard to the US and Sudan’s place on the state sponsors of terrorism list. It would be useful to hear from the Minister whether he believes such measures remain appropriate now, despite past activities. What assessment have the Government made of the impact that sanctions are having on the peace and transition process?

Sudan also holds up to $60 billion in past debts, including debts owed to UK Export Finance of just over $860 million. Will the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to investigate debt restructuring and relief for Sudan, in particular to support the transition to democracy?

We must look to the UK’s ability to respond to ongoing processes, as this transition is showing, given the change in UK Government machinery with the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office. Obviously, there are multiple issues there, including human rights, justice, rule of law and democracy, and, of course, the development challenges.

Sudan received £84.3 million for 2019-20, but I understand that only £33 million has been approved for 2020-21. The Sudan conflict reduction and stabilisation programme is also planned to end in March 2021. That is my understanding of the figures—if incorrect, will the Minister clarify what the budget for Sudan will be from official development assistance spend? What programmes will be cut or reduced? Will the Sudan conflict reduction and stabilisation programme continue past March next year?

Finally, Sudan is obviously a strategic location. Not only is it right to get behind the transition and peace and stability in Sudan, but there is the wider UK strategy in east Africa, with that focus on development, trade, security and stability. Will the Minister say a little about how the UK’s priorities in the wider region will develop, and how Sudan sits within them? What is happening with regard to South Sudan, which remains in an extremely volatile and serious situation to the south?

We all, like the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, want a situation in which we can visit Sudan and celebrate its incredible history and people. My father visited Sudan in the 1970s on a joint services expedition with the British Army, as part of a Royal Geographical Society exploration. He told me some fantastic stories about people he met and the wonderful sights he saw. He travelled through Darfur, including El Fasher, and other places which, decades later, were subject to some of the worst atrocities we have seen in recent times. We are all behind this transition and we all want to see Sudan and its people succeed into the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising a very important issue. I do not have those terms and conditions in front of me, but I am more than happy to meet her to discuss what sounds like an incredibly serious point that she has raised.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Of course, what the Minister forgets is that the reason we are getting a seat on the UN Human Rights Council today is that the seat is uncontested. We actually have no representatives—a historic low—on any of the main committees of the 10 United Nations human rights treaty bodies and we have already failed to get elected to the International Court of Justice for the first time since world war two. Human rights barrister Amal Clooney resigned as a UK envoy, saying that it was untenable for her to urge other states to respect and enforce international obligations when the UK declares that it does not intend to do so itself. With so many crucial human rights abuses that we should be rightly taking leadership on, does the Minister accept that we undermine our position when his fellow Ministers undermine the rule of law and our commitment to human rights?

[Nigel Adams]

No, I do not accept that whatsoever. We have clearly set out our reasons for introducing the measures related to the Northern Ireland protocol. We need to create a legal safety net to protect the integrity of our internal market and ensure that we can deliver on our obligations. The UK Internal Market Bill is a defensive, precautionary and proportionate measure to safeguard the integrity of the United Kingdom.

Bahrain: Prisoners Under Sentence of Death

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I know that the Bahrainis do take seriously the views of the United Kingdom and this House. As yet, we do not know what the outcome of the Court of Cassation will be. If the death penalty is handed down again, I can assure the House that our opposition to the death penalty will be restated, at both official and ministerial level, to the Government of Bahrain.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) for his question on this crucial matter.

The trial is based on evidence secured through torture, including allegations that interrogators threatened to rape the wife of Mohammed Ramadhan in front of him after a series of brutal beatings and hung Hussain Moosa from the ceiling for three days while beating his genitals with batons. Finally, they have been sentenced to death. Condemnation of the trials of these two men has been almost universal from many of the organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred. All have condemned the use of torture and all have called for their death sentences to be quashed.

Unfortunately, we have yet to see a decisive statement on this matter from the Government. Worse still, the two Bahraini security bodies that enabled the torture—the Special Investigations Unit and the ombudsman for the Ministry of Interior—were funded by this Government. The Government say that they engage with the Bahraini Government on human rights, the use of torture and the death penalty, and I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but where are the results from that engagement, given this case and many others? Since 2012, the Government have provided over £5 million of technical assistance, yet the number of executions has increased and human rights abuses have increased.

The Foreign Secretary spoke earlier this week about Magnitsky sanctions, absolutely rightly so, and the importance of human rights and opposing the death penalty and torture. In that light, will the Minister condemn the use of torture by the security forces in Bahrain in these two cases, rather than just monitoring them? Will the Prime Minister raise this matter with the King? Will the Minister raise it directly with his opposite number? Will he press the Government of Bahrain to establish an independent commission of inquiry to conduct an Istanbul protocol-compliant investigation into the torture allegations for these two men? Will he freeze assistance to the Bahraini security bodies that are potentially implicated in this case? Will he publish the human rights assessments and the assessments against the overseas security and justice assistance guidance, which the Foreign Office is supposed to use when funding such programmes to assess whether the programmes it supports are implicated in torture and the use of the death penalty.

It is one thing for the Foreign Secretary to speak of taking action against those complicit in torture and the death penalty, those who are blood-drenched, but it is another for the Government to walk the walk. Time is of the essence in this case. Will the Minister speak out? Will the Government speak out at the highest levels and do what they can to get the death sentences commuted?

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the points he raises. I can assure him that the United Kingdom Government, Her Majesty’s Government, oppose torture as well as the death penalty, and that has been communicated widely and regularly. It is well known around the world. He makes reference to the OSJA process. I can assure him that that is a robust process that ensures that when the British Government train or support other Governments around the world, that training or support is not used to facilitate human rights abuses. The process constantly reviews our relationships and I am confident that it is robust.

With regard to the oversight bodies the hon. Gentleman mentions, it should be noted that they have brought about a change in the way that Bahrain works. Police officers and prison officers have been brought to justice because of the oversight bodies that we support. The Bahraini royal family have demonstrated a desire to improve their structures and transparency, and the resilience of their governmental structures. The oversight bodies we support are a part of that. While they continue to express the desire to improve their structures and head in a positive direction, we will maintain our support to enable them to do so. As I said, Bahrain remains a human rights priority country. We wish to see improvement. Where the Bahrain Government express desire to implement that improvement, we will continue to support them to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

I know how hard my hon. Friend works in her Stoke-on-Trent Central constituency. Together, the Foreign Secretary, the ministerial team and the diplomatic network continue to galvanise international support and financial commitments to support research, development and equitable access to vaccines. Through ongoing research at Oxford University and Imperial College, London, the UK is leading the way in developing a coronavirus vaccine. We are also working with international partners to ensure that, wherever a vaccine is discovered, it will benefit the global community as a whole.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mr Speaker,

“The breadth of the work that DFID is involved in is exemplary…It is firmly in our national interest…As we have seen in recent years with the Ebola crisis”.—[Official Report, 13 June 2016; Vol. 611, c. 262.]

Those are not my words, but those of the Minister. Destabilising Britain’s efforts to tackle disease globally in the middle of a pandemic is not diplomatic; it is dangerous, and the hostile takeover by the Foreign Secretary has been slammed by 200 leading health and humanitarian agencies, Prime Ministers and MPs from both sides of the House, and those who have assessed the impact of mergers in Australia and Canada. Why does she think she got it wrong, they all got it wrong, and instead, it is Dominic Cummings who is right?

[Wendy Morton]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We served together on the International Development Committee several years ago, but to be absolutely clear, when it comes to the FCO and DFID merger, as the Prime Minister set out on 16 June we retain our commitment to spending 0.7 % of our gross national income on official development assistance, but it is through closer integration that we will maximise the impact of our aid budget. At the recent Gavi event—the global vaccine summit on 4 June—we mobilised the collective influence of diplomacy and development; it is an excellent example of what the two Departments working together can we achieve.

DFID-FCO Merger

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I know that he has looked at this very closely. We have discussed the integration of foreign policy on many occasions. That is absolutely essential, and I agree with him entirely that we want to keep not just the funding but the expertise, the know-how, the branding, the soft power—the elements that make the United Kingdom a development superpower—in the new structure. However, the reality is, and I thank him for his agreement on this, that we have an opportunity to do even better if we focus our aid and our foreign policy, and indeed, we are more aligned on trade and defence and wider security matters in a more focused way. That is the exciting opportunity that this merger allows, but I agree with him entirely on the point that he raised.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for her important urgent question.

“The effectiveness with which DFID is able to deliver aid is because the Department has decades of honed experience in understanding the most effective and targeted ways of spending taxpayers’ money”—[Official Report, 10 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 276.]

—not my words, but those of the Secretary of State for International Development, last week, who now appears to have simply been completely overruled.

Scrapping a Department that is crucial to global vaccine development provides health care and aids the world’s poorest in the middle of a global pandemic is irresponsible and counterproductive and wrong. The Government should be totally focused on steering our country through the challenges we face right now. We have had one of the highest death tolls from covid-19 in the world. Millions of children are out of school and face the worst unemployment crisis in a generation, which will hit young people and the lowest-paid the hardest; and these challenges are global too.

Instead, the Prime Minister has decided to undertake a large-scale restructure, which will cost millions of pounds of public money, and he will abolish a Department that is the most transparent, the most effective and a global champion at delivering value for money for British taxpayers. Instead, UK aid will be spent through Departments, which, TaxPayers Alliance found,

“neither”

contribute

“to poverty reduction or the national interest.”

So can the Foreign Secretary tell me: when did the Prime Minister decide this matter? Why did he not wait for the conclusion of the integrated review? Did the decision go through the National Security Council? Which civil society and development partners were consulted? How much will the reorganisation cost and what legislative changes are planned? Will the DFID budget be ring-fenced in the new Department?

The Foreign Secretary also mentioned trade envoys. What role now for the Department for International Trade? Multiple former Prime Ministers, from both sides of the House, have criticised the decision. A former Conservative Secretary of State for International Development said:

“Most British diplomats lack the experience and skills to manage 100 million pound development programs…Trying to pretend these two very different organisations are”

the same

“damages both.”

Laurie Lee, the chief executive of Care International, said,

“this is the worst decision on aid since the Pergau dam scandal”

and

“In the middle of a national crisis, the Prime Minister has chosen to spend time, focus and effort on fixing a problem which does not exist…it’s not too late…to think again.”

This is not global Britain. This retreat from the global stage is a mistake, and we firmly oppose this attempt to abolish the Department. It will not only have a life-threatening impact on the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, but it will reduce our ability to make the world safer, fairer and better for all.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and welcome the opportunity to debate this issue with him. He asked a number of questions, including on timing. The covid crisis has required the Government to act and operate in ways that we have not done before—

[Stephen Doughty]

indicated dissent.

[Dominic Raab]

He is shaking his head before he receives the answer—I thought we were going to have a sensible debate about the pros and cons of this change. I listened carefully to what he said, so he might do me that courtesy in return. We had an integrated approach, and we brought the alignment as far as we conceivably could on covid, the repatriation of nationals, the hunt for a vaccine, and keeping supply chains open. However, this situation has brought to light and made clear to us how much more effective we can be if we integrate through this merger.

The hon. Gentleman asked when the Prime Minister made the final decision. Obviously he spent weeks considering it, but he announced the change on Tuesday, swiftly after the conclusions had been resolved. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the aid budget will be protected, and we are committed to the figure of 0.7% of gross national income—I think that reassures those who are concerned that somehow the aid budget will be cut as a result of this change, which is not true.

The hon. Gentleman asked about DIT and trade, and as the Prime Minister made clear on Tuesday, we will ensure that our trade envoys are responsible for formally reporting to ambassadors and high commissioners in their respective countries. More broadly, the International Trade Secretary, who answered questions in the House a few moments ago, is doing an exceptional job in striking those free trade deals, which are a great opportunity for businesses and consumers in this country. That will continue. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned third party support. There has been widespread agreement on this from the Chair of the Select Committee, from my predecessor as Foreign Secretary, and from the HALO Trust, which is a charity that deals with landmines and welcomes this move.

I will leave the hon. Gentleman with one thought: of OECD developed countries, only one has a separate Ministry of Development. Indeed, the tide has been in the direction of integrating foreign policy with aid and development, as that is the progressive thing to do. I understand why the Labour party, which set up DFID, feels proprietorial about it, but what matters is the effectiveness of foreign policy. What we have learned during coronavirus is that this merger will ensure that we can be as effective as possible, and deliver more efficient value for taxpayers’ money.