Conflict in Sudan: El Fasher

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

As the hon. Gentleman highlights, this is an appalling situation. I have just highlighted, in relation to the Deputy Foreign Secretary’s visit, the sheer horror and misery being wrought on these innocent people across the area, which is absolutely beyond words. As I say, there are now very clear signs of ethnic cleansing and appalling humanitarian abuses. We are providing support for the gathering of evidence, and we will continue to try to support those gathering information on the ground —be they NGOs or civilians—to make sure that those who are committing the atrocities will be held to account.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

As I understand it, previous regional efforts to agree on the deployment of a peace- keeping force in Sudan were rebuffed last year, but I find it incredibly hard to see how ever-escalating atrocity and indeed catastrophe can be avoided without one. Is that even on the agenda now, because otherwise it seems to me we are talking here not so much about atrocity prevention as about atrocity monitoring?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

As I say, we have continued to raise this at recent meetings of the UN Security Council, and decisions on how to move forward to provide protection for innocent people will be taken with international partners.

Sudan: Government Response

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is entirely right. The World Food Programme told me, when I was in Chad, that it effectively had supplies of food only until the end of May. That is one of the reasons why Britain has increased so substantially its bilateral aid, and why my noble Friend Lord Benyon went to the Paris meeting on Monday last week to make sure that others, too, put their money where their mouth is and supported the desperate situation she described.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

This morning I had the pleasure to meet some brilliant organisations working on behalf of people in Sudan who are desperate to be reunited with family here in the UK. They want answers to two questions. First, given the circumstances people are having to live in, why is it taking over a year for many applications to be decided? Secondly, why do the Government demand that these people make dangerous and illegal cross-border journeys before they will even consider their applications, because they have to enrol biometric information? That seems completely counterintuitive. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Home Office a polite kick up the backside and urge a change in approach?

[Mr Mitchell]

If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me details of any specific cases, I will of course make sure they are looked into.

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme: Pathway 3

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Thank you, Sir Charles. That is no problem at all.

I thank all hon. Members for their powerful contributions. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has done us a great service by securing this debate. In normal times, we would debate Afghanistan and the situation we have left it in much more frequently than we do. Obviously, other things have come to overshadow that, but he and other hon. Members have not let it slip, so I am very grateful to all of them for continuing to make the case.

The report by the Foreign Affairs Committee on the retreat from Afghanistan gives useful context. It described the withdrawal as

“a disaster and a betrayal of our allies that will damage the UK’s interests for years to come.”

It contains a section that succinctly describes what we are talking about. It says:

“Most damning for the Foreign Office is the total absence of a plan for evacuating Afghans who supported the UK mission, without being directly employed by the UK Government, despite knowing 18 months before the collapse of Afghanistan that an evacuation might be necessary. The hasty effort to select those eligible for evacuation was poorly devised, managed, and staffed; and the department failed to perform the most basic crisis-management functions. The lack of clarity led to confusion and false hope among our Afghan partners who were desperate for rescue. They, and the many civil servants and soldiers working hard on the evacuation, were utterly let down by deep failures of leadership in Government.”

Many of those described as having been utterly let down by the FCDO are now caught up in attempting to leave Afghanistan by using pathway 3 of the Afghan citizen resettlement scheme. As Members set out, they face huge peril, and it is right that we scrutinise very closely indeed how the Government are responding to their needs, given that stinging critique.

We welcome the fact that there is a bespoke scheme, but given what happened, it would have been totally unacceptable had there not been one. There are some positive features—for example, those who benefit from the scheme get indefinite leave to remain—but even here the absence of the full rights of refugee status for those on pathways 1 and 3 is regrettable. That point was made by the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier).

Overall, I am afraid our analysis is that the Afghan scheme has been totally inadequate. It has been too restrictive in criteria, too limited in ambition and too slow in implementation, and the consequence is that it will damage the reputation of the UK, as pointed out by Members in the debate last week. It will see a continued high number of Afghans resorting to irregular routes to the United Kingdom; there, they will meet the full force of the horrendous asylum reforms that the Government are implementing. I will make a few short points on those three criticisms: restrictive criteria, limited ambition and slow implementation.

First, there is the way that the three pathways are set up and their relationship with ARAP. The set-up is not entirely without logic, but I believe that there is a heavy stink of categories being tweaked for the Government’s convenience, rather than because it is fair or just. Given that he is here, I will take the liberty of quoting from the speech made last week by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), in which he pointed out that

“People who got out under Operation Pitting have been retrospectively shoehorned into various schemes.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 287WH.]

That has allowed the Government to inflate the number of people who have been resettled—if we can call it “resettled”—under the citizens resettlement scheme. In addition, the criteria for ARAP were tightened so that those who would have got status under that scheme have now been counted towards the ACRS. The Government can say that they have made great strides towards their vague—and, I think, unambitious—target of 20,000 in the years ahead when, in reality, little progress has been made at all since August 2021.

If we take a step back, the reality is that we are called on to deal with two types of cases. First, there are cases where people have been put at a degree of risk because they contributed to our mission in Afghanistan. To my mind, there should be no question about our obligation to provide a safe home to all those individuals, but the Government have, in essence, defined that group much more narrowly by reference to military objectives and a direct employment relationship, rather than the broader objectives of the UK’s presence there. Surely the uncapped ARAP schemes should also apply for the British Council staff, the GardaWorld contractors, the Chevening alumni and so on.

Our obligation to these people is such that there should be no question of there being a vague ambition of 20,000 people or, worse, what seems to be a 1,500 cap per year for those on pathway 3. Our obligation to those people should be diluted or restricted in absolutely no way at all, and that is precisely the point made by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay in his speech.

The second group of people are those in danger of persecution if they remain in or return to Afghanistan, not because of involvement in or support of the UK mission in Afghanistan but because of the general situation there, which has been described in detail by hon. Members. That is clearly a huge segment of the population and it is not an obligation that can lie solely on the United Kingdom, but we must play a role alongside our international allies. So far, our efforts in that regard have been absolutely inadequate. Pathway 2, for those outside Afghanistan and referred by the UNHCR, was supposed to reach 2,000 people in one year, but by September only four had arrived, if I am correct; I do not know if there is an update on that.

Meanwhile, pathway 3 supposedly prioritises vulnerable people from within Afghanistan, but it does not really do that at all. Someone gets such priority only if they have already established that they meet other eligibility criteria, such as being a British Council staff member or a contractor. It seems wrong that there is no more general pathway for vulnerable groups such as the LGBT community, religious minorities, political activists or women, in particular those who have taken up jobs such as acting as a judge.

Alongside that, there is the powerful point made by the hon. Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West and for Sheffield, Hallam that there are no additional pathways for those with obvious links to the United Kingdom, such as having family here, perhaps being former residents or other such ties. Surely it makes sense for people who live here—with parents, siblings or others, perhaps, still in Afghanistan—to much more easily be able to sponsor them to come here. I commend the many organisations that wrote to the Prime Minister earlier this week to explain that family separation not only has a terrible impact on the individuals in Afghanistan, but puts a colossal strain on family members here in the UK. Those families need to be reunited.

The failure to provide routes for such people who have clear links to the UK—whether under pathway 3, a family reunion or anything else—brings me to my final point, which I just touched on. There is clearly a significant possibility that many of these people will therefore seek to make it here irregularly and, as has been said, that is borne out by the number of Afghans arriving in small boats. Members will have heard me speak at length in the Chamber about my opposition, and my party’s opposition, to the approach being taken by the Government to people arriving in small boats. I will leave that broad debate for another day, but surely even those who support the Government must be given pause for thought about the implications for Afghans who arrive in the small boats.

Given what has happened there, how can it possibly be right to criminalise and detain, and then pack off to Rwanda, people who were so badly let down by the Foreign Office in Afghanistan? Among them will be those who would qualify for some of the pathways but gave up waiting, as well as those who do not qualify for any of the pathways but, for utterly understandable reasons, have sought to have their claim heard in the United Kingdom. What is wrong with simply treating these people with dignity, hearing their asylum claim and granting it quickly in the overwhelming number of cases?

Finally, I mentioned those who qualified but gave up waiting. That brings me to the “too slow” criticism. It is painfully slow, as we explored in last week’s debate, and as has been expressed this afternoon. I was going to ask the Minister also about the number of staff who are operating here. He has given us an answer, but I thought that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) made a very good point about the number of staff who are working on other schemes.

The Home Office actually seems to enjoy creating extra work for itself, even though it struggles to get through what it has already been tasked with. For example, asylum claims now have to be reviewed every three years, and people are having to make a decision on admissibility six months before they will even look at the asylum claim. We have 2 million EU citizens with pre-settled status who will now be asked to apply again for full settled status. Why not ask the Home Office to stop giving itself so much additional unnecessary work and move those people to work on the Afghan scheme? It would be a simple solution.

It also seems that a lot of the infrastructure that the UK built up during the Syrian resettlement scheme has been allowed to rot away because, for years, the Government failed to explain their long-term resettlement strategy or numbers. That is something that they are still a bit guilty of. There is also another debate to be had about the deficiencies in how those who make it here from Afghanistan have been supported, but at least they are here, so I will leave that for another day, given the clock.

In summary, we owe the people of Afghanistan. Setting up the schemes was essential, but, in practice, they have been too restrictive, too unambitious, and too slow. We are not coming close to living up to our obligations, and there must be a significant ramping up of resources and of effort.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

I ask my hon. Friend to allow us to consider whether we can provide any further information, but I want to be absolutely clear and concise in what I say today. Those are the reasons why we are not giving out further figures.

I was going to say something about broader support for Afghanistan from His Majesty’s Government, but I will not. I think I will conclude—

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister was clear on the 1,500 cap, but he did not offer a defence of it. We are talking about people who in essence are now at risk because they assisted the UK mission. Why should we be saying to people, “Sorry, not this year—we’re full up”? Why should there be a cap?

[Mr Mitchell]

There will always be arguments for and against figures. That is the settled position of the Government and I am not in a position today to comment any further on it.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) asked me about refugee status; all those arriving in the UK under the ARAP and ACRS have the right to work and access education, healthcare, and public funds. I hope that is helpful to her.

In conclusion, the UK Government remain committed to offering a safe and legal route to the UK for eligible British Council, GardaWorld and Chevening alumni affected by the appalling events in Afghanistan in August 2021. I acknowledge and understand the strength of feeling in the House about the speed of progress. The Government remain acutely aware of the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and are working with partners to try to influence the Taliban. We are also working at pace to deliver on our commitment to relocate eligible Afghans who supported the UK mission and our wider values and are at risk as a result. I look forward to the day we can confirm to the House that we have succeeded in repaying that debt of honour.

Jagtar Singh Johal

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Stuart C. McDonald.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for securing this urgent question and for his relentless campaigning on behalf of his constituent. I echo his comments 100% and agree with what he said. As I understand it, the outgoing Prime Minister has previously been absolutely clear that this is a case of arbitrary detention. Is that still the Minister’s position? It seems absolutely clear that Mr Johal has been disgracefully treated during that detention, so will the Government call for his release? It is a simple question. I appreciate that legal proceedings are ongoing just now, but can the Minister assure us that in the fulness of time there will be a full statement to this Parliament about exactly what went on and the sort of inquiry that my hon. Friend calls for.

Can I raise two final issues? We know about this thanks to the diligent work of organisations such as Reprieve, but it brings to our attention the issue of whistleblowers. We know that 99% of the time our security services serve us absolutely fantastically well, but things do go wrong and abuses happen, so is there not now a need for protection of whistleblowers and for public interest defences in relation to disclosures—for example, in relation to the National Security Bill going through Parliament just now?

On that Bill, does the Minister agree that, hypothetically, if UK agencies are found liable for damages for actions they undertake that lead to torture abroad, those damages should be paid? If so, why does the Bill—in clause 58 —appear to create new and unnecessary ways to avoid the security services having to meet those damages? How can that be justified in any way, shape or form?

[Rehman Chishti]

The first part of the hon. Member’s question was about the view taken by the former Prime Minister of arbitrary detention and Mr Johal’s case. The United Nations working group on arbitrary detention has issued its opinion about Mr Johal. We take this seriously and have consistently raised our concerns about Mr Johal’s case directly with the Government of India. We are committed to doing what we can to assist him.

On the second part of the hon. Member’s question about arbitrary detention and the issue of release, the focus of these cases is always on working in the best interests of the individuals concerned. There is no blanket approach for these cases; our approach is tailored for specific individuals. I am sure that the new Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary will want to review this case as a priority.

On the hon. Member’s specific point about the National Security Bill, the Home Office leads on that matter. Again, I do not comment on matters relating to the intelligence agencies, or on this specific case because of a live civil litigation case in the High Court.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her tremendously eloquent, passionate, and absolutely relentless pursuit of this cause. She has been an absolute credit to her constituents. I too am grateful for the opportunity to express my solidarity and support for Nazanin and her family, and I do so on behalf of my constituents in Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. Many of them have been in touch to express their shock at the continuing torture that Nazanin endures as a hostage in Iran.

Like pretty much everyone else in the Chamber, I have had the privilege—and it was a privilege—of meeting Richard a couple of times at the Iranian embassy and then at the Foreign Office. It is appalling that he has felt compelled to go on hunger strike twice just to seek justice for his family. I hope it gives him some heart to see the huge cross-party support on display today.

First and foremost, our starting point is condemnation of the Iranian regime. How it has acted and continues to act is absolutely appalling, but today we have the opportunity to ask, and we must ask, questions of the UK Government. My constituents want to know what the strategy is. We almost need to ask whether there is a strategy. I appreciate that there are no easy answers to such situations, but we are entitled to see evidence of a concerted strategy and one that is being pursued energetically. Sadly, we are not convinced that that is the case.

It has been rightly asked why other countries have managed to secure releases, but the UK has not. It is beyond doubt that it is linked to the IMS debt that is legally due. Why is that not being paid? Why are the Government unable even to speak about it when previously they appeared very willing to make promises and raise expectations?

While it is welcome that diplomat protection was granted to Nazanin, how has it been used by the Government? What practical difference has it made? If it is useful, will others be granted the same status? These are just some of the questions that my constituents and I would love to see answered, and we will continue to push for answers along with colleagues across the House.

Afghanistan: FCDO Update

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. The Prime Minister has spoken to the UN Secretary-General, including on this, and I spoke to Jean Arnault, the special representative on Afghanistan. Without giving all the details, I can say that of course the relationship with the UN will be one of the critical factors we consider in shaping the resettlement scheme.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

The Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill would see hundreds, possibly thousands, of Afghan asylum seekers arriving in this country in the months ahead and being prosecuted in criminal courts and imprisoned for up to four years. How can the Foreign Secretary possibly justify that proposal?

[Dominic Raab]

We want to be a safe haven for those fleeing persecution, but we also want to encourage people to take legal and lawful routes, and that is why we have set them out. We do not want to encourage the kind of situation we see across the channel; we want to ensure that people come through the right channels. That is the right, balanced approach, and I think it is what our constituents would expect.

Syrian Refugees in Jordan and Lebanon

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members are all attending physically, and I remind you to please clean your spaces before you use them and, importantly, before you leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the situation of Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, and to have the opportunity to highlight the situation of Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon. I want to try to put a human face on some of what I will speak about, and I will start by referring briefly to a constituent of mine, whom I will call Mr N. I will speak about him and his family.

The case of Mr N and his family represents so much that is brilliant about how the UK and the international community support Syrian refugees, but also so much that is awful about the gaps that there still are. Mr N, his wife and his younger children have found safety and a home here in the UK in my constituency, which is of course the brilliant bit. However, the family has suffered too much and many people, including me, would say that we can do more. Not all of what I would term as Mr N’s immediate family have made it here. His adult daughter, son-in-law and one grandson remain in Lebanon.

As I will come to, the situation for Syrian refugees in Lebanon is not good, and that has impacted on the family in the most heart-breaking way. There were previously two grandsons. One lost his life after illness at the age of three. Mr N explains that his grandson was initially refused admission to hospital in Lebanon. Even when he was finally admitted, he was left for seven hours without receiving treatment, which the family attribute to his status as a Syrian refugee. That accords perfectly with the evidence from the country, which I will come to.

Of course, the loss of the child has hit the family hard, with Mr N’s daughter and wife particularly badly hit. Mr N’s daughter had already been vulnerable to mental ill health after her husband had been detained and suffered ill treatment in Syria. They are currently residing in a garage on a farm in Lebanon, where they are working in exchange for accommodation. The family rely on the family here to transfer them money for food and basic essentials. A family reunion application for Mr N’s daughter, son-in-law and grandson has been refused, but given his circumstances, I hope that decision can be revisited and reversed. Although I appreciate that the decision is not the responsibility of the Minister’s Department, I would be incredibly grateful if he could persuade one of his Home Office colleagues to meet me to discuss the case.

The family’s grim existence in Jordan is far from unique. Millions of other Syrians across both Jordan and Lebanon are also suffering. That is a collective failure by the international community, because it cannot be left to those two relatively small countries to take an unbelievably disproportionate share of responsibility for those who fled conflict and persecution in Syria. The countries are trying hard. There is no doubt that we can ask more of them, but we should ask more of ourselves first.

I will briefly set out a bit more about the situation for Syrian refugees in those two countries and ask what the UK response is, in terms of both aid and taking refugees from the area. Of course, there has been good work in both of those areas, but the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am deeply concerned about what cuts to international aid mean for the work that is going on there. I am also concerned about the end of the Syrian resettlement scheme, the gaps in the family reunion rules along the lines of those that have hit my constituent’s family, and the so-called new plan for immigration. My concern is that it is driving desperate people straight into the hands of people smugglers. I am concerned about what the cuts to aid and all the reforms to immigration will mean when they are added together.

Despite talks of crisis here in the UK or in Europe more generally, it is not our wealthy club of countries that is required to take responsibility for hosting those who had to flee Syria. As ever, that responsibility has fallen on countries such as Jordan and Lebanon. Since 2011, over 5.6 million refugees have fled Syria and sought safety abroad, not only in Lebanon and Jordan but in Turkey, Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports that refugee poverty and vulnerability is increasing and that the impact on host communities is growing. Funding for the humanitarian response is not keeping up with need.

UNICEF reports that among those 5.6 million Syrian refugees, 2.5 million children live in those same countries in camps, informal settlements and urban settings among host communities. The situation for those children is sometimes dire. UNICEF says:

“Major challenges remain in realizing the rights of refugee children. Due to the protracted situation and the covid-19 crisis, refugees are vulnerable to several protection risks, including psychosocial distress, child labour and domestic and sexual violence. Economic hardship has led some women and girls to resort to negative coping mechanisms such as child and forced marriage. The socio-economic impacts of covid-19 have also disrupted and reduced access to health care, vaccinations and learning, and increased food insecurity and child poverty, resulting in an overall decline in children's well-being.” 

As we have heard, Mr N’s grandson obviously struggled to gain access to healthcare, with devastating consequences.

Jordan has provided refuge for over 1.3 million Syrians, which is the third highest number of Syrian refugees that any country has taken in. Around half of them are registered refugees and around 126,000 of those live in refugee camps, while the greatest number have settled in urban and rural areas, mainly in northern governorates and Amman.

The Assessment Capacities Project’s humanitarian analysis programme reports that in Jordan

“almost 6 in 10 Syrian refugees of working age are unemployed. Amid aid cuts and the covid-19 pandemic, most Syrian families are relying on humanitarian assistance to meet their basic needs. Before the pandemic, Syrian refugees living outside of camps spent more than two-thirds of their monthly household budget on shelter, leaving few resources for food, health or education. They often resorted to negative coping mechanisms such as cutting meals, child labour, or early marriage. This is a rising concern as more urban refugees and host communities have difficulty accessing basic services and earning an income due to the covid-19 containment measures.” 

The UN calculates that 86% of Syrian refugees outside camps in Jordan live below the poverty line and that most of them rely on humanitarian aid to meet their basic needs. Although Jordan is not a signatory to the refugee convention, the Jordanian Government work closely with UNHCR. However, even before the pandemic Jordan was facing record unemployment and slow growth, and things are much worse now.

Before I move on from Jordan, I should also mention in particular the situation just over the border in Syria at the Rukban camp, where humanitarian workers are prevented from accessing 12,000 refugees who are stranded there. I understand that those restrictions have been contributed to by the Jordanian Government, as well as by the Assad regime and Russia. The presence of coalition forces in the area around the camp and border crossing means that they could be well-placed—they may even be required—to ensure that aid is delivered, and it would be useful to hear the Minister’s response on that.

Lebanon hosts more refugees per capita than any country in the world, including around 1.5 million Syrian refugees. Lebanon was already facing deep economic and financial crises before covid. Not only has the pandemic made things significantly worse, but so too did the explosions at Beirut’s port on 4 August last year. The UNHCR reports:

“The protracted nature of the refugee situation with limited self-reliance possibilities, coupled with the impact of these recent crises, have led to an exponential rise in extreme poverty among refugees. According to the 2020 Vulnerability Assessment of Syrian Refugees (VASyR), 89% of the Syrian refugee families are now living below the extreme poverty line, up from 55% in 2019. The situation is creating hunger, increased debt and mental and physical health problems, as well as increasing risks of evictions, exploitation, child labour and gender-based violence. At the same time, the percentage of Syrian refugees holding valid legal residency has further decreased, as the number of refugees able to pay for residency renewal has reduced and fewer fall within the criteria of the 2017 fee waiver. A lack of legal residency exposes refugees to the risk of arrest and detention. It also hampers their access to basic services like education, health care and social services, as well as to obtaining civil status documents such as marriage and birth registration. Non-Syrian refugees without legal residency are particularly vulnerable and at high risk of deportation to their country of origin”.

The scale of the problem with residency rights is huge. Human Rights Watch has suggested that only 22% of the 1.5 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon have the legal right to live there, meaning that

“the majority are living under the radar, subject to arbitrary arrest, detention, harassment and summary deportation to Syria”.

Refugees and other vulnerable groups are also being left behind in the covid response, with Syrian refugees dying from the virus at a rate that is more than four times the national average.

I turn now to the UK response. As I say, I acknowledge that some excellent aid work has been funded. The Syrian vulnerable persons scheme has been, on the whole, an absolute triumph. But the question is this: what happens now? Neither Jordan nor Lebanon are on the list of 34 countries that will receive bilateral overseas development aid from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in 2021-22. However, I fully appreciate that other Departments may spend money in those countries, that the UK may contribute to multilateral assistance, and that the list of countries might grow beyond 34. Nevertheless, we really need some information here and now.

The Minister provided a written answer at the end of April in which he talked about the need for aid to be

“more strategic and remain a force for good”.

However, he did not explain what the implications of that were for Jordan and Lebanon. The International Rescue Committee says its funding for protection work for vulnerable Syrians in Lebanon has been removed. Another programme in the same country, aimed at providing protection services to 107,000 people was cancelled before it could even begin. The Mines Advisory Group has confirmed that all UK funding to support its work there in removing and destroying land mines has been cancelled. That is probably the tip of the iceberg and as much as I could find in the time available. Surely now is the time to increase spending in Jordan and Lebanon, rather than cut it.

Meanwhile, the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Scheme has been closed, having achieved its 20,000 target over five years. A new global resettlement scheme has been announced and is underway, but we know little about its ambitions in terms of numbers or how many it will take from Jordan and Lebanon, the focus of the earlier scheme. If there is no target, how do we budget? How do partners such as local authorities plan?

In the grand scheme of things, the global community is not even beginning to scratch the surface of what needs to be done. As the UNHCR’s Ambassador in the UK has said:

“UNHCR estimates that 1.44 million refugees globally are in need of resettlement, but only 22,770 were resettled through UNHCR last year, with 829 arriving in the UK. These are the lowest numbers we have seen in almost two decades—just when refugees needs are extremely acute and rising”.

Turning to key asks, regarding the family I mentioned, if there is any way the Minister can encourage a Home Office Minister to meet me to discuss that specific case, I would be hugely grateful. Will he also comment on the issues relating to the Rukban camp and humanitarian access? More generally, what is the FCDO’s response to the deteriorating situation for Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan? How can now be the right time to cut aid? What impact will that have on people who are forced to seek better conditions elsewhere? What work will he do with UNHCR to achieve its goals in supporting refugees there, including access to protection, to a legal status, to protection from arrest and forced return to Syria, and access to health care, work and support? Will he work with the Home Office to broaden family reunion rules, so that families such as the one I have highlighted can be reunited here? What are the targets for the new resettlement scheme? How many will come from this region? Does not this combination of cuts to aid and a flimsy regime of safe legal routes simply mean that all the more people will feel compelled to use people smugglers—something that none of us wants to see?

In conclusion, these countries may seem far away, but I think we all agree that every country, particularly wealthy countries such as ours, have a responsibility to play our role in supporting the victims of the war in Syria. That also, of course, has an impact here. Syrians continue to flee here, including on dinghies in the Channel. Most importantly, there is an impact on families, such as my constituents, who are already here and settled and who have seen their loved ones suffering in such a terrible way. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to put these points and the family’s case today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Ethiopia.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

What recent assessment he has made of the (a) political and (b) security situation in the Tigray region of Ethiopia.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)]

We are very concerned about the conflict in the Tigray region of Ethiopia, in terms of both the humanitarian impact and the risk of spill-over and spread through the region.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the work that he has done in this regard. I share his concern. I spoke to Prime Minister Abiy on 10 November. We have made it clear that there needs to be a de-escalation of violence, humanitarian access and protection of civilians. Of course, there are also all sorts of regional implications, which is why I have also spoken to the Prime Minister of Sudan and the Foreign Ministers of Egypt and South Africa. This will require not only regional but international efforts to secure peace and protect the humanitarian plight there.

[Stuart C. McDonald [V]]

As the Foreign Secretary said, this conflict has implications for the whole region, including Somalia, with Ethiopian troops being pulled out of that country to be re-deployed to Tigray. Given reports that President Trump also intends to move troops out of Somalia, and given the threatening presence there of al-Shabaab and Islamic State, what discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with international partners about ensuring that Tigray does not end up helping to destabilise Somalia, too?

[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.

Official Development Assistance

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. That is a very concise summary of what my constituents in Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East are saying to me about the proposed merger of the FCO and DFID. Indeed, far from being broken, my constituents in Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East love the work of DFID and let us face it, there are not many Government Departments that we can say that about. Far from fixing anything, they see this merger as a cause for significant concern and a hugely retrograde step.

Nobody on the SNP Benches or any of my constituents are arguing that UK aid will shudder to a halt overnight as a result, but the worry is that the goal of reducing poverty and inequality in some of the world’s poorest countries will be diluted, with UK aid redirected to serve foreign policy and business interests. The rigorous monitoring and evaluation of aid will be lost in the Department, which is proving notoriously difficult to hold to account, and diplomats rather than aid experts will be making strategic decisions.

My constituents are worried that it will be the world’s poorest communities that will pay the price.

As the Prime Minister himself said, DFID has been a more effective spender of aid than any other Government Department, so my constituents are simply asking why does he want to meddle with that? Conservative Members seem to be arguing that everything will carry on just as before. That is a very strange argument for a fundamental change to departmental structures, and there is nothing that I have read in Government statements or letters that assuages these concerns. On the contrary, they confirm our fears. When speaking to the House, the Prime Minister appeared to argue that we should move aid from Zambia to Ukraine and from Tanzania to the western Balkans, not because of any assessment of need, but because it was in what he thought was the UK’s interests. I have absolutely no objection to the Prime Minister talking about cross-Government strategies, cross-departmental working and so on, but he is absolutely wrong to describe a separate aid Department as a luxury. To me, it is essential precisely because it prevents a conflation of development need and diplomatic self-interest that my constituents fear.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says, but he will recall that, in the White Paper that the Scottish Government produced ahead of the 2014 independence referendum, they recommended that if Scotland had its own arrangements then the international development department would sit within its foreign affairs department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

We have already heard about the good work that small independent countries can do, and how they make up their Government departments will vary from country to country. My whole point is not that this will bring aid to a shuddering halt but, as I have said, that it will undermine its effectiveness and the good work that the Department does.

The issue is not, as was said earlier, whether aid is in the UK’s interests, but whether the merged Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will genuinely pursue a true aid agenda or will pursue a security, trade or defence agenda. Speaking specifically about UK Departments, we must remember that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office seems to think that it is in our interests to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. While the Prime Minister was in charge of that Department, there were real questions and concerns about the UK watering down EU proposals for an independent international inquiry into the war in Yemen, yet the same decision makers will now be responsible for the aid we send to Yemen.

How do we align those different goals? Am I being alarmist? Perhaps I am, and I hope that these concerns are entirely ill-founded, but we had an urgent question earlier today on Bahrain and its appalling human rights abuses. Our relationship with that country, and the FCO’s investment there through our conflict, stability and security fund, hardly inspire confidence that the FCO really is able to differentiate aid from a strange Foreign Office agenda.

For all those reasons, we really should think again. However, if we are to press ahead with this ill-judged decision, we need more than easy assurances from the Dispatch Box that the focus on tackling poverty and gender inequality will remain. We need that spelled out in departmental plans and strategies, as well as in budgets, and we need strict rules that require a minimum spend in the world’s least developed countries. We also need a more robust framework of scrutiny than ever from the Select Committee and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. Otherwise, I fear that ever more spending motivated by trade or defence interests will be parcelled up and badged as aid. We may very well still meet the 0.7% goal, but we will do so in a more hollow and empty way. The fear we have is that that is precisely what the Prime Minister wanted to achieve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am afraid that if I am to have any chance of getting people in, I will need to reduce the limit after the next speaker to three minutes. I call Laurence Robertson.

Turkey-Greece Border: Refugees

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Standing NATO maritime group 2 is deployed in the Aegean sea to support all international efforts to cut the lines of human trafficking and illegal migration. Everyone knows that has been happening and that people are being exploited. Additionally, NATO ships are providing real-time information to the coastguards and the relevant national authorities of Greece and Turkey, as well as to Frontex, which will help them in their efforts to tackle the crisis.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

My constituent Joanna Hudak is working on the Aegean islands with Action for Education, and she points out that 42,000 asylum seekers currently reside there, whereas there is capacity for only 6,000. So further support for these reception centres is welcome, but that is not the comprehensive response needed. Surely the comprehensive response must include the relocation of some of these asylum seekers around Europe, and the UK should be part of that process as well.

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman is spot on, and I could not disagree with him. However, we have to ensure that this process is done in a managed way, which is why we are supporting Turkey, bilaterally, in particular. We have been very proactive in providing significant levels of bilateral support to Turkey and Greece, because it is very important that we manage these migration challenges in a much wider and much more managed way.