Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Jim Shannon

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I can reassure the hon. Lady and other Members that if they have issues about the way the Members’ hub works, for instance, they can simply walk the short distance from here to the Table Office. I understand that the Table Office, on a monthly basis, reviews suggestions and possible improvements that Members have drawn to their attention. I know personally, from having raised an issue, that that has then been reflected in how the system works. I therefore encourage all Members—perhaps in the new Parliament we will need to remind new Members of this fact—to remember that the Table Office is there, and that it will respond to and review matters on a monthly basis.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I put on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for the encouragement you have given me? I remember my first day here in 2010 and seeing my name on the entrance as I came in. I remember your firm handshake and the friendship you showed, which put me very much at ease. As a Back Bencher, I thank you for giving me and others the opportunity to express ourselves on many occasions, which we have done. I also thank you for your encouragement, guidance and friendship. To your wife Sally and your family, I say thank you so much. It will never be forgotten: not by me and not by many in the House. Thank you.

What consideration has been given to encouraging more paperless routes to parliamentary procedure in an attempt to be an example to businesses outside this place on how to cut down and make the most of physical resources?

[Tom Brake]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that that has happened and that there are further changes in the pipeline, for instance in relation to Committees, legislation and Members’ web pages. The changes he seeks to introduce to make this place a paperless environment are in the pipeline and, I hope, will be delivered over the next few years.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Tom Brake and Jim Shannon

Monday 19th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Tom Brake]

The idea that there will be a general election is one of the obstacles that the Labour party has put in the way of supporting a people’s vote. The only circumstances in which a general election would happen would be, first, if the Prime Minister said, “I want a general election.” We all remember what happened the last time she decided to call one—it did not go very well, so it is unlikely that she will do that.

The other circumstance would be if there were a vote of no confidence, which would probably require the Government’s friends from the Democratic Unionist party to support it. The DUP would be looking at the Leader of the Labour party potentially becoming the Prime Minister. I suspect that the DUP would not want to facilitate that. If the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) wants to intervene and confirm that they would support a vote of no confidence, this is his moment. He is sitting on his backside, and clearly does not want to confirm that this afternoon.

Clearly there are almost as many Tory party policies on where the Government should be going as there are Back Benchers. I do not know whether Tory Back Benchers have an official position on whether they would seek to revoke article 50 if we reached 29 March without a deal, or whether they are happy for us to go over the cliff. I guess we will have to wait and see. One clear element of Tory policy is to blame everyone but them for the debacle unravelling in front of us.

A procession of very senior ex-Ministers has appeared on television in the last couple of months. One such ex-Minister said, “I’m our man in Washington and I’ll be able to secure a free trade deal with the US in three months.” The same person spent two years trying to negotiate the deal with the European Union and had to walk away. The outgoing Secretary of State for the Department for Exiting the European Union is also seeking to blame the Europeans for bullying the Government. I recall that he was one of a number who said that Brexit would be simple and straightforward, that the EU would give us everything that we wanted, and that it would all be done almost overnight. The reality is that he has failed. There was never any chance that the sort of Brexit that he and some other prominent Brexiters claimed was deliverable would be delivered for the United Kingdom.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman always gives way, even though we hold practically opposite opinions. What has made the difference is the backstop down the Irish sea, which is why the former Brexit Secretary took the principled decision to resign his position, as others have done. It makes the whole withdrawal agreement more unacceptable. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that from where we stand as Unionists, things have moved beyond the pale, so we will have to make our decisions accordingly whenever a withdrawal agreement comes before the House?

[Tom Brake]

Clearly, and rightly, the hon. Gentleman will take the decision that his party feels is appropriate, although I am sure he will also want to bear it in mind that Northern Ireland voted to stay in the European Union. I hope he will factor that into his considerations.

[Jim Shannon]

Northern Ireland is only part of the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, along with Scotland, Wales and the rest. The decision was made collectively. For the record, my constituency voted by 56% to 44% to leave. I understand that across Northern Ireland the majority opinion was different, but throughout the whole United Kingdom the vote was clear. We all want to leave and we will leave it together, not in parts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency had voted to remain, but I am pleased that he acknowledges that the overall picture in Northern Ireland is that people voted to remain in the European Union. What he says confirms something that some people realised at the outset, two and a half years ago, which is that frankly there was no solution to the Northern Ireland border problem. Some of those who claimed wrongly that there was a solution were former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, who should have understood the import of it and known better. I do not think that there is any mileage in the technical solutions that are being proposed. Yes, technical solutions can be part of the answer, but it is not clear to me how we can find a technical solution to any checks that will have to happen, particularly occasional checks of the contents of vehicles.

[Jim Shannon]

Last week, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs heard expert opinions from representatives from Holland and Switzerland about how the technological method would work. May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman reads the transcript of the evidence from those two experts, which will give him an indication of exactly how it will work?

[Tom Brake]

I am sure that the credentials of the hon. Gentleman’s experts are sound, but at an event yesterday I sat next to a businessman who trades all over the European Union. He pointed out how much more difficult it is to trade with Switzerland: it required HMRC to come into his business to check the validity of the paperwork for a £1,400 order. Differences clearly exist between the trading models that apply around the European Union, so it is not enough simply to say we should adopt the approach or the technology of Switzerland, where I understand that checks are still conducted not at the border, but some distance away.

I really should conclude my speech. If we get to 29 March without a deal, I think our stopgap should be to revoke article 50. I hope that the European Court of Justice will confirm that that can be done. If we do not revoke article 50, every single Member of Parliament who advocated that no deal was manageable will have to face their constituents on 30 March and every single day afterwards to explain why there is a shortage of medicines in the NHS and of food on the shelves at Sainsbury’s, and why a process that it was claimed would be simple, straightforward and manageable was nothing of the sort.

Paradise Golf Resort, Morocco

Debate between Tom Brake and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I and others present have constituents who have been defrauded. Does he agree that it is past time that our Government stepped up on behalf of the 800 investors who have been defrauded, and used all diplomatic pressure available to achieve a fair solution for those 800 people?

[Tom Brake]

I could not agree more. I gave advance notice of my remarks, so I hope that the Minister will tell us this evening what our Government are able to do to assist the British investors who have been affected by the scandal.

The developer claimed that Amendis had not supplied the water connection, but subsequently it was shown that, in fact, the developer had not paid the invoices from that water company, so the services were not supplied. The scheme was financed by the Banque Centrale Populaire, which was part-owned by the Moroccan state, who provided some guarantees but then withdrew them without the investors’ consent. A critical point is that the Moroccan Government signed an investment agreement in 2015, which stated that the development

“golf course is almost completed, and the residential component is finished”,

but that is a complete fabrication. That is why I think there is a Government connection that requires the Moroccan Government to take responsibility.

In February 2016, the project was in a derelict state. At that point, the Moroccan Government handed over the land to the development company. Given that a requirement was placed on the Moroccan Government to track the progress of the project and make sure that certain milestones were hit, I wonder why they handed over money when it was clear that there had been no activity on the project for seven years. After the developer was arrested, a Government-owned construction company was appointed to complete the project. Certain reassurances were given by the Moroccan embassy here in London that additional money—130 million dirhams—would be provided to the developer, but that money was then withdrawn.

On 26 January 2017, the developer was found guilty in a penal case and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment but was released before completing the full sentence in May 2017. Then, on 10 October 2017, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office raised the issue in a meeting with the Moroccan Ministry of Tourism. I hope that the Minister can say whether there have been any developments since then in terms of such contact. The most recent development is that a meeting will take place with the judge involved in the case on 30 January. The core team has asked if someone from the FCO can attend, and again it looks as though the Minister might be able to clarify whether that will be the case. I and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak want a formal UK Government representative there.

This scandal raises many issues about the Moroccan Government’s involvement and contractual responsibilities. Clearly, if nothing else, they have a moral responsibility, given the many references to their supporting this project, and they need to respond to that. There are indications that they are at least willing to engage in a dialogue, in that both I and the hon. Gentleman have been into the embassy and spoken to staff there, who are well apprised of the issue, but that does not mean that the matter is resolved. I am sure that the embassy would like it to be resolved, if for no other reason than to stop the very loud protest outside the embassy, which deafens the staff inside the building. There is some incentive, therefore, for them to resolve this.

I acknowledge that the Minister’s direct capacity or ability is restricted in this matter, but I hope that he can first confirm whether there is a role for the FCO in terms of providing advice about whether it is sensible to invest in certain countries—it provides advice, obviously, on whether a country is safe—and secondly whether the FCO will be sending a representative to help the core team and their advocates when they appear in front of the judge. Finally, as highlighted in a couple of interventions, we want reassurances from the Minister, whom I am sure will be well informed on the issue, that the UK Government will not let this drop but will take every opportunity they have to raise it, whether with the Moroccan Ministry of Tourism or the Moroccan Foreign Minister. I saw the Foreign Secretary here earlier. I thought he might be responding to the debate, so as to put lots of oomph behind it, but I am sure he will find out about this as well.

I welcome the opportunity I have had to raise this matter, and I hope that it will be appropriate if I leave my remaining time to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak so that he might make a contribution before the Minister responds.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Jim Shannon

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

Thank you, Sir David. Your timing is perfect.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). It enables me to remind him of the promises that were made during the referendum about the £350 million a week that would be available to the NHS post-Brexit. I am as imbued with the good spirit of Christmas as others, Sir David, and I will therefore seek to limit my comments to the five minutes that you have specified.

A number of Members referred to what the Prime Minister said to the Liaison Committee in connection with amendment 7. I understand that she was asked no fewer than five times to confirm that she would provide a meaningful vote, by which I mean a vote that would take place on a Bill that will be amendable and would allow the debate to take place at a time when the Government could be instructed to go back and negotiate some more.

Let me briefly comment on new clauses 13 and 54. New clause 13 would ensure that we stayed in the customs union. That, I think, remains the only solution to the Ireland-Northern Ireland border issue apart from a border in the Irish Sea, which I do not think the Democratic Unionist party would support.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Never.

[Tom Brake]

As for new clause 54, it would be strange if Ministers did not want to support the Prime Minister’s words. I suspect that, if they did not support them in tonight’s vote, that would amount to a rebellion. We know that had the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs been here, they might have led such a rebellion, but I doubt whether junior Ministers would want to be responsible for a rebellion that would set aside what the Prime Minister said in her Florence speech.

My main purpose is to refer to amendment 120, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which amounts to a request for a vote on the deal. I am sure that, if there were time, I would give way to a great many interventions about the will of the people, but the will of the people as expressed on 23 June last year is not necessarily the will of the people as expressed today. It is because I respect the will of the people that I believe that the people should be given the chance to vote on the final deal that the Prime Minister secures. There is absolutely no doubt that the final deal will look very different from the deal that they were offered on 23 June last year.

I promise not to refer too often to the £350 million that was offered on the side of the bus, but people will remember that pledge, and it is not going to be honoured. They will also remember a pledge about a significant cut in immigration. There has, in fact, been a drop in immigration, but I think that it has happened because the UK economy has shrunk rather than for any other reason. It has certainly not happened in respect of non-EU citizens coming to the United Kingdom, because over many years the level of non-EU immigration has remained consistently high—and, of course, every Member will know that that is something of which our Government are in complete control.

Finally, there were the threats made about the 5 million people who were supposedly going to arrive in the UK as a result of our membership of the EU, and our Foreign Secretary who talked about opening the borders to Turkey and the claim that there would be marauding gangs of armed criminals out and about threatening people in our towns and villages.

I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) used conciliatory language in describing his position on the idea of having a vote on the deal, but I recommend to him, and perhaps others, that the Liberal Democrats are first adopters of this policy, with the Green party, and I hope he will develop an appetite for it—and, indeed, that some Labour Members might as well. It would require legislation, followed by a three-month election campaign, and then a vote that would have to take place before we finally leave the EU, but that is perfectly possible.

I conclude by saying that that would enable the UK population to have a vote on the deal; they would be able to express their views on whether they still want to accept now what they were offered on 23 June last year.

Civil Society Space

Debate between Tom Brake and Jim Shannon

Thursday 26th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary human rights group, so I know the good work that she does. She has been a focal person in speaking out on such issues, and I wholeheartedly endorse that. She has outlined a number of the things that she, I and others have written about to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The nature of restrictions on civil society varies, but common elements of such laws include: targeting activists who scrutinise Government policies; increased scrutiny of NGO activities and sources of funding, which is all very investigative and focused on making life difficult for the NGOs; and, in some cases, the targeting of organisations that work on issues such as women’s rights, freedom of religion or belief, LGBTI or lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights, migrants’ rights, and the environment. Those are all critical and important issues in civil society throughout the world. It is important to retain such organisations.

Repressive practices are not limited to states such as Russia, Egypt or Pakistan: they are in danger of spreading across the world, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said in her intervention. Civil society experts have spoken of a contagion effect, whereby repressive laws introduced in one country are copied by its neighbours, who might think, “That’s the way to do it.” It is not.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a good example of what he is referring to is the law against NGOs being deployed in Egypt? Perhaps Egypt is copying the law deployed in Russia. We hope that such things are raised by the FCO at every opportunity in its discussions with the Egyptians.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his action in this House on human rights. He regularly brings issues to the attention of Ministers and Departments, for which I thank him. In his intervention he gave another example of exactly what happens, which is that spreading across. It is imperative that civil society space is protected; otherwise, repressive practices and violations of human rights could spread further. We need to have debates such as this one and what I hope will be a positive response from the Minister and the Government.

The debate provides an opportunity to identify the many benefits of thriving civil society spaces and the innovative ways in which the UK can support them. Furthermore, we can raise the issue of the considerable pressures on civil society and of civil society’s important role as a driver for positive socioeconomic and political development, as well as for the promotion and protection of human rights.

Unfortunately, there is today an extremely worrying trend in many parts of the world: that those who stand up for those in need are themselves increasingly subjected to various forms of attack for doing so, including physical attack. Today, in this House, we need to stand up for human rights and liberties, such as people’s right to pursue their religious beliefs, not to suffer persecution and to worship their God.

As chair of the APPG on international freedom of religion or belief, I have heard of far too many people far too often being in desperate need of others to support and speak up for them. This is our chance to be a voice for the voiceless—to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves and who might not know what we are doing. We do so because we want to and because we have a job to do in this House. Sometimes, all it takes is for something to be said for a difference to be made. That is what is so worrying about the restrictions on civil society: they are making it even more difficult to let people support, speak out and make positive changes for each other. That is what we should be trying to do.

What exactly is civil society? It includes all NGOs and institutions that manifest the interests and the will of citizens. It includes the family, the private sphere and other special interest organisations. It also includes bodies and individuals who organise to represent a religious, business, academic, social or quasi-political interest within a community. That is a large raft of issues across all of society.

Without input from civil society, both the legislature and the Executive would be less informed and more disengaged from issues that affect members of the community. Such input has been critical to humanitarian and human rights reforms, of which one of the most conspicuous was the abolition of slavery in the early 19th century. Other input was on issues such as child labour laws, property and electoral reform, women’s rights and the maintenance of human rights. We are here because of our interest in human rights, so I want to make that point very clear.

The ebb and flow of information between legislators and civil society is an integral part of modern democracy. Moreover, sectors of civil society frequently possess deeper knowledge and expertise on some subjects than is readily available from Departments. It would be a gross error for the legislature or the Executive to hamper in any way the expression of the views of civil society. Civil society is protected through rights such as those to freedom of association, assembly, expression and religion or belief.

The role of NGOs is significant, but civil society goes beyond simply collective organisations of people. Hence, the definition of civil society must be expanded to include how people organise themselves today in the 21st century, because how it is done has evolved. As technology develops, people increasingly frequently utilise the internet to raise human rights and other issues online, as well as through social media and other platforms. It must be noted that none of those spaces in which civil society operates is immune from the pervasive measures being implemented throughout the world to restrict civil society.

The angle that I am coming from as I set the scene is that of freedom of religious belief and civil society. As everyone present probably knows, that right is an area that I am deeply passionate about and it is deeply linked to and affected by the closing of civil space across the world. When the Pakistan minorities APPG members and I met those NGO administrators and other people in September, I recognised that what they were describing was happening on the ground not only to them in Pakistan, but in other parts of the world.

The link with religious freedom can predominantly be seen in two ways. First, the closing down of civil society directly limits individuals’ ability to exercise their freedom of religion or belief, as civil society often includes people simply coming together to promulgate their faith or beliefs. The restriction of such activity directly contravenes article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which includes the freedom to manifest and practise religion or belief in public—it is right there. That is a clear example.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman may be coming to this, but does he agree that two faith communities in particular are being heavily targeted? The Ahmadiyya Muslim community is at risk in places such as Pakistan and, more recently, Algeria, and the Baha’i faith is under threat in Iran.

[Jim Shannon]

I totally concur, and I will mention those communities. It is good to have a collective positive opinion on behalf of those people.

CIVICUS Monitor has analysed what drives violations of civic space. Government leaders have often taken drastic measures to prevent people from criticising their decisions, engaging in human rights monitoring or calling for their basic social or economic needs to be met. Civil society actors frequently say that “security concerns” were cited as the rationale for restricting their voices and actions. It is easy to do that—it is a simple way of controlling what takes place—but it is wrong if it is used for that purpose.

I turn to Pakistan, which I have a heart for; I know that many people in the Gallery have a heart for it, too, as do all the Members who are here. The shrinking of civil society space can be seen vividly in Pakistan, and it is having a detrimental effect on individuals’ freedom to manifest and observe their religion or beliefs. That is particularly troubling as civil society has played a key role in supporting the country to move forward in the face of adversity. NGOs in Pakistan have advocated for political processes when military dictators have made life difficult for political parties and made it hard for individuals or civil society to make other collective efforts.

Although many people are trying to move forward, some are trying to pull them back. NGOs have assisted Governments whenever public service delivery, developing democratic systems and responding to mega-disasters have become too challenging. We in this House have helped very constructively whenever disasters have taken place. The Minister was part of that process in his former role. NGOs have even provided a voice for the marginalised and kept human ideals alive. For example, 26 million Pakistanis and 1.5 million Afghan refugees are supported by international NGOs to meet their urgent needs for relief and recovery, as well as their longer-term needs for social and political development.

It is heartbreaking to hear reports of the worsening situation for civil society groups and human rights defenders in Pakistan. Those horrendous stories of specific victimisation and persecution are terribly difficult to hear, especially when we consider the many positive activities in which those people have engaged to help the country develop socially and economically.

In a written statement to the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2015, Christian Solidarity Worldwide highlighted the threats against and intimidation of human rights defenders in Pakistan, which is a highly divided and polarised society. They face constant threats and intimidation from multiple sources, including state and non-state actors, religious and political groups, local communities, district administrators and the police. CSW said:

“The volatile security situation, growing religious fundamentalism, and complex political circumstances in Pakistan make their work very dangerous.”

Human rights activists who speak out about human rights violations are subjected to harassment and targeted attacks, with little protection from the Government or security forces—specifically the police, whose task that is. There is much evidence from across Pakistan to back that up. Lawyers and judges are particularly vulnerable when defending the rights of people accused of blasphemy. Lawyers who take on blasphemy cases are subjected to extreme pressure before, during and after court hearings. CSW reports that activists,

“lawyers and district level judiciary have been threatened and killed throughout Pakistan”.

Rights defenders continue to be harassed and attacked with impunity, creating an air of silence and fear in society.

The murder in 2016 of several activists epitomises what is happening to civil society space across the world. These are specific stories of people who were targeted. Zafar Lund was shot in the head by unidentified assailants and died outside his home in Kot Addu in Punjab province on 14 July. He was a member of a civil society forum that aims to protect water rights. He promoted local Saraiki folklore and storytelling, and supported education and children’s rights. On 7 May, Khurram Zaki, a prominent human rights campaigner and editor, was shot dead by four unknown assailants while he was having dinner at a restaurant in north Karachi. More recently, there have been concerns about the enforced disappearance of four human rights activists who have campaigned for human rights, including the right to freedom of religion and belief, and had a blasphemy case brought against them. They have used their blog to report on human rights violations by security forces and religious extremists in Pakistan.

Those cases feed into the wider trend of silencing civil society that has sparked protests across Pakistan against the abduction of activists. However, the Ahmadiyya community has been subjected to the worst actions against civil society, as the right hon. Gentleman said. On 5 December 2016, 28 armed police from the counter-terrorism department of the Punjab police forcefully entered the headquarters of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Rabwah. The raid was carried out without a warrant, and four Ahmadiyyas were unlawfully arrested under anti-Ahmadiyya and anti-terror laws. Using the law of the land to target people is a crime, and it should not be allowed to happen. Those people are being held in custody and have been tortured, despite having committed no crime whatever.

That raid followed the arrest and conviction in January last year of an 80-year-old shopkeeper, who was imprisoned for eight years under anti-terror laws for possessing copies of the Koran. There are serious concerns that the recent arrests will similarly result in unlawful sentences, without any justification. The raid marks a turning point in the history of Pakistan, as it was carried out by the Government rather than extremists. There is something seriously wrong when the Government, who we should all have faith in, use their strength and power to target minorities and ethnic groups. It is almost unbelievable. The fact that police are able to enter Ahmadiyya premises without a warrant and against a high court order, make arbitrary and unlawful arrests, subject Ahmadiyyas in custody to torture, and convict them without any evidence sets a dangerous precedent. That concerns me and others who are here today. What discussions have the Government had with the Pakistani Government to end their misuse of anti-terror laws and ensure that civil society is safe and able to thrive for the positive development of Pakistan?

While I am focusing on south Asia, I will also raise the case of Shahidui Alam, a world renowned photographer and journalist from Bangladesh who has very close ties with us in the UK. Just this morning, he and others were arrested in Dhaka while protesting against the Bangladeshi Government’s plans to build a coal-fired power station near the Sundarbans, the world’s largest mangrove forest and a UNESCO world heritage site. Police allegedly used excessive force and violence, and a bus, to ram down the crowds. Previously, they have used water cannon to dispel peaceful protests.

Security forces in Bangladesh have a well-documented history of using excessive force to prevent protests, which I and others have raised in the House before. There has also been a sharp rise in the targeting of activists and protestors by Government forces, and an increase in restrictions on civil society in general across Bangladesh. Protests against the power station’s construction are ongoing. Those issues are for another debate, but we must look at them. They illustrate the continuing disproportionate response of the Bangladeshi Government, who, in direct contravention of international human rights obligations, shut down peaceful civil society protests and reduced the space for protesters to be heard and engaged with. Again, can the Minister reassure the House and those involved in this debate that, given our close ties with Bangladesh through our diaspora communities and the Commonwealth, the Government will press this issue with their counterparts there?

The issues in Bangladesh go well beyond those I have listed; I will speak on others as well. Organisations have expressed many concerns about Bangladesh and the closure of its civil society. Restrictions on freedom of expression, under section 57 of the Information & Communication Technology Act, 2006, have caused particular concern. It states that any person deliberately publishing any electronic material that causes law and order to deteriorate, prejudices the image of the state or person or causes hurt to religious belief will be punished with a maximum of 14 years and minimum seven years imprisonment.

The Bangladeshi Government have used that section to arrest and charge journalists for publishing what they allege to be fake, obscene or defamatory information in electronic form. The ICT Act has previously been used, and continues to be used, to oppress freedom of expression in Bangladesh, and amendments to the Act in 2013 further increase police powers and penalties for violations. The growing application of section 57 threatens the space for civil dissent in Bangladesh.

Law enforcement agencies and the Bangladeshi Government were slow to respond to the murders of several bloggers. In fact, the Government’s response was negative; they urged the bloggers to curb their writing and impose self-censorship, which, again, is a curtailment of the freedom of the press. One conservative Islamic group called on the Government to punish atheist bloggers who criticise Islam, and several bloggers were arrested under the law that prohibits publishing such works. Asif Mohiuddin went into exile following accusations of blasphemy in 2015; news editor Probir Sikdar was arrested after publishing information about a war criminal in August 2015; and Mohon Kumar Mondal, the director of the Bangladeshi non-governmental organisation LEDARS, was charged for damaging the religious sentiment of Muslims in September 2015. It is evident from interviews that self-censorship is occurring as a result of attacks, fear and misuse of the law. There is also a feeling that the current Bangladeshi Government are in denial. Those are some examples of what is happening in Bangladesh.

There are other examples across the world of the silencing of voices that appear to challenge Governments. The words of the former UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, offer an apt reminder that:

“If leaders do not listen to their people, they will hear from them—in the streets, the squares, or, as we see far too often, on the battlefield. There is a better way. More participation. More democracy. More engagement and openness. That means maximum space for civil society.”

India’s Intelligence Bureau—a sub-agency of the Ministry of Home Affairs—published a report in June 2014 that alleged:

“A significant number of Indian NGOs…have been noticed to be using people centric issues to create an environment which lends itself to stalling development projects.”

Again, that is an attack on expressing oneself on important issues—environmental issues or whatever—in civil society. The report mentioned several campaigns targeting the Government on economic and development issues. Subsequent sweeping measures to clamp down on NGOs receiving foreign funding have undermined the work of civil society. Following the Intelligence Bureau’s report, the Ministry of Home Affairs barred several NGOs and human rights activists with international links from receiving foreign funds by suspending their licences for six months and freezing their bank accounts.

There are significant concerns that human rights defenders and NGOs, and foreign organisations that fund them, are becoming targets for state repression. That is exacerbated by nationalist groups calling on the Government to curb the work of foreign NGOs in the country, claiming that foreign involvement is not conducive to India’s development. The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010—the FCRA—restricts the work of human rights defenders, as do some income tax regulations.

The US Government—whom it seems we will be in partnership with, based on what the President has said—have expressed concerns over the crackdown on the activities of both local and international NGOs in India. The US Government have seen it, and we must back them up on that. Three UN human rights experts—the special rapporteur on human rights defenders, Michael Forst; the special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai; and the special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye—have also recently called on India to repeal the FCRA, as it is increasingly being used to obstruct civil society.

All NGOs receiving external funds are required by law to register with the Ministry of Home Affairs. Again, the Indian Government are using tax regulations to restrict and control what happens. In April 2016, Maina Kiai showed that the FCRA does not conform to international laws and standards. Those are clear issues. The Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have recognised that, agreeing with the Charity Commission in 2012 that there was scope for the UK to contribute more actively to the Working Group on Enabling and Protecting Civil Society. However, that is not reflected in that group’s current membership.

DFID’s current civil society partnership review, which was announced by the Secretary of State for International Development, sets out a simplified new central funding system for civil society organisations that supposedly incentivises good performance and pushes for more efficiency, transparency and accountability. While value for money and stemming profiteering is welcome, I ask the Secretary of State through the Minister who is here, what she is doing to ensure that the current stringent reassessment of DFID’s partnership with grassroots organisations will not, in practice, endanger UK support of vital civil society action—especially that which helps to achieve DFID’s strategic priority to

“promote the golden thread of democracy, the rule of law, property rights…and open, accountable institutions.”

In December 2016, UNESCO expressed “deep disagreement” with the methodology used in DFID’s multilateral development review, and concern that

“values of peace and dialogue”

are not anchored in DFID’s new practices. Oxfam chief executive officer, Mark Goldring, echoed concerns that DFID fails to demonstrate convincingly that it is

“wholeheartedly committed to building the partnerships with civil society that organisations need.”

When allocating funding, DFID is often fearful of mixing religion with development by supporting faith-based organisations. We must take that on board.

Despite the right to freedom of association, assembly and expression, and freedom of religion or belief, those groups of individuals are frequently shut down and marginalised under anti-terror laws because they are perceived as providing an alternative narrative to the state’s. What is wrong with providing such a narrative? Freedom of expression and religion are vital to society as a whole. After all, some strands of religion have an overtly political agenda, while others promote or condone discrimination against women and violence, including terrorism.

Most major aid agencies have recognised the limitations of not strategically engaging with religious-based groups. By ignoring the underlying religious beliefs that shape attitudes in most parts of the world, secular development has not had the impact on human behaviour it had hoped for. Treating religion as irrelevant has also not prevented the emergence of extremism. Engaging with religious-based civil society needs to be done with care, with bottom-line criteria set out in partnership. It must also be done in a sensible way, with openness and understanding, moving to engagement through open, constructive discussion on differences in values and objectives. Seeking to engage them as equal partners, instead of estranging them, will also be useful.

Faith-based organisations already provide trusted community focal points and have a strong track record of delivering services and eliciting motivated voluntary service religious leaders. Furthermore, those institutions are often the most trusted in developing countries. Such organisations and groups have been at the forefront of advocacy, including in the civil rights movement in the US, the Jubilee 2000 debt campaign and the frequent religion-led resistance to dictatorships in Asia, Latin America and Africa. It is crucial to understand that diverse religious communities often co-exist peacefully, and that the shortcomings of egalitarian Government provision tend to stoke violence that erupts, which, though it may take on a religious garb, may not be about religion itself—as seen with Boko Haram in Nigeria, for example.

I am sure that the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, which I chair, and other hon. Members would be delighted to help DFID to think through how it works with the religious-based section of civil society. Though often tricky, it is crucial for achieving strategic objectives. I also hope that that understanding can be mainstreamed across all Government Departments and programmes, including countering violent extremism programmes, so that civil society groups from a particular faith background, both around the world and in the UK, are not, in practice, targeted and in turn disempowered.

The insistence by some that extremism—which, as yet, has no clear definition—is driven above all by religious ideology must not limit individuals’ right to voice critical concerns about Government action. The protection of individuals’ freedom of expression, and the ability to associate and assemble, are greatly needed, not only for holding the UK Government but for holding all Governments to account. We must watch closely to ensure that counter-terrorism policy does not cross the line it has crossed in Pakistan, Russia and Egypt.

I will conclude, because time is passing very quickly. Where civil society groups are not currently able to raise their voice in countries around the world—we have heard in interventions and, I am sure, will hear from other hon. Members that that is the case—I encourage the UK Government and the Minister in particular, either directly or through organisations such as the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and the International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief, to support and capacity-build parliamentarians to raise human rights issues in their own countries, providing a voice for civil society.

In this time of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, a move that I fully support, how will the UK work both in its own programming and in conjunction with the EU, the Council of Europe, the Commonwealth and international parliamentarian networks to ensure that civil society is protected, supported and heard? We need to ensure that we in this House, who are all now a part of civil society in some way, shape or form, continue to protect our space and those who use that space in order to help one another to be safe and have better lives. For the avoidance of doubt, that is what human rights is all about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Jim Shannon

Thursday 9th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady’s point. She will, I hope, be pleased to hear that on 5 July the Advisory Committee will discuss this very subject. I hope the Committee will be able to provide her with a clear action plan that will help to address her concerns.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is vital that we embrace diversity at all levels to ensure that history is remembered correctly. We have portraits and statues of Queen Victoria in the House of Lords. Does the Commission agree that Members and visitors, particularly the latter, are astounded by the architecture, colours and sheer splendour of the Palace, and that there is unlikely to be anyone who leaves feeling negative or even discriminated against?

[Tom Brake]

I am happy to agree with that comment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Jim Shannon

Thursday 21st April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I echo what the hon. Gentleman has said about the dedication of House of Commons staff. I am sure that he will be aware of the training opportunities that are regularly publicised through the “Learning News and Activities” brochure. Staff have plenty of opportunities for promotion and, for instance, retraining, if that is something that they wish to undertake.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I want to put on record my support and gratitude for the amazing work that the House employees do for us all. We are grateful to them, and we should do all we can to support them in any ventures in which they want to take part. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it should be a priority to provide further training opportunities for employees who want to progress, both in the House and outside it?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. If he is aware of any staff who have put in a request for a particular type of training that is not currently available, I would certainly like to know about that, and I would be happy to pursue the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Jim Shannon

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

Again, the appropriate authorities will have heard the hon. Lady’s question. Like her, I think it is important that we recognise the very important role that women have played, and continue to play, in politics, and I hope that will be reflected in what is on offer in the bookstores.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is very important that the House of Commons sets the agenda for gender equality. The right hon. Gentleman has outlined some of the things that have been done, but what more is being done to let people outside this House know that we are leading the way and setting the examples in raising gender equality issues?

[Tom Brake]

Independent assessments are carried out of how Parliament addresses the issue of equality. For instance, members of the public could look at Stonewall’s assessment. That puts Parliament nearly in the top quarter, so progress is being made. More still could be done, but that is a very good way for members of the public to assess the progress we are making.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for giving me the last few minutes in the debate. I concur with the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen)—he described exactly my feelings.

Charities and the Christian organisations tell me that the Bill will reduce the financial threshold at which a third-party campaigner must register with the Electoral Commission. Under the newly broadened range of activities, if a third party plans to spend £2,000 or more in the year leading up to the general election, it must register with the Electoral Commission. The Christian Institute and the Royal British Legion are concerned about that—the hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of charities that have the same concerns.

That is a unique problem for charities, many of which hold events at the Long Gallery in Stormont in the Northern Ireland Assembly for, for example, children in care, cancer awareness-raising or women’s rights, to name three of dozens of important issues. The events are costly to hold—it is highly possible that a charity will spend £2,000 or more in the year before an election without purposely seeking to enhance one candidate over the other. The charities set out to achieve a goal, but the Bill will disadvantage them greatly. I do not believe that the Government have acknowledged or understood the key issues Opposition Members have described.

Registering with the Electoral Commission at the low threshold will create disproportionate administrative burdens on charities and regulatory bodies. One point that has not been made in the Chamber is that the limit will apply to partnership working. For example, if two charities work together on a single-issue campaign and spend £2,500 each, they must both report expenditure of £5,000, which is nearly half of the limit of £11,000 in Northern Ireland.

The awful part of the measure is that, significantly, it will become a criminal offence to exceed the spending limit. The charities will not only be stopped from campaigning; they will be criminalised, which must be wrong. I cannot understand how the Government can say that that is not the case.

Other hon. Members have indicated that there will be changes to the Bill in the House of Lords. Let us pray for those changes. If those changes are made before we debate the Bill again in the House, we will have got what we wanted, but it is a pity that the Government cannot acknowledge that point.

Under the Bill, there is a significant possibility that the legitimate campaigning efforts of community and voluntary organisations will be unduly curtailed, and perhaps even criminalised, which undermines the efforts of charitable organisations to advocate for the most disadvantaged in our society. It could also prevent politicians from hearing those voices. Would it not be a terrible tragedy if we the politicians did not hear the voice of the charitable organisations that want us to campaign on their behalf to make life better for our constituents?

The Bill must not unduly impact the vital work of the community and the voluntary circle. I support hon. Members who are trying to do away with clause 27. I ask the Government to realise they are heading the wrong way.

[Tom Brake]

rose—

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

Of course we must. Whenever a massive database is introduced, there is significant potential for errors such as mismatches to be hidden in it. I hope that the Committee stage will provide scope for further examination of the details relating to the database. I am thinking particularly of the retention of children’s DNA. In its briefing, Liberty expressed concern about the fact that a child who was caught shoplifting at the age of 10 and again at the age of 12 would remain on the database for the rest of his or her life. If Liberty’s understanding is correct, that makes me extremely uncomfortable.

I am pleased that children will no longer be fingerprinted in schools. I am astonished that schools have never been required to seek permission for that from parents. As for the regulation of surveillance and CCTV, my experience is similar to that of the right hon. Member for Blackburn and others who have spoken today. The most frequent request that I have received as a Member of Parliament has been for additional CCTV systems, but many people have approached me expressing concern about, for instance, the fact that CCTV cameras were pointing straight through their front windows, or their bedroom windows, from premises opposite. I believe that better regulation could solve the problems that have been reported to me, and I therefore welcome the proposals in the Bill.

[Jim Shannon]

In my experience, when CCTV has been introduced in what might be described as hot spots where there is plenty of antisocial behaviour such as violence and robbery, there has been a marked reduction in the number of such incidents. Does the hon. Gentleman share that experience?

[Tom Brake]

I certainly think that CCTV deals partly with the fear of crime. However, I know from the results of an inquiry conducted by the Home Affairs Committee that its effectiveness in cutting crime is not so clear-cut. It obviously makes a difference in, for instance, car parks, but it is less obvious whether it makes a difference on a wider scale. The evidence may not be as strong as Members wish it to be.

I am pleased that we are considering the issue of automatic number plate recognition systems. I have raised with Ministers in the past the extent to which bailiffs and private contractors can use such systems, and have suggested that more regulation might be necessary. In Committee, we will doubtless wish to clarify the relationship between the Information Commissioner and the surveillance camera commissioner to ensure that there will be no overlap between them. The regulation that is being discussed at present clearly relates to CCTV in the public sector, involving local authorities and police, but that constitutes a relatively small proportion of the CCTV that is available. We may have to consider whether the boundaries specified in the Bill should be extended.

An issue that is closely related to the issues of CCTV and ANPR systems is that of the use of identification systems in pubs and clubs. Like, I suspect, a number of Members, I took up an offer a couple of weeks ago during special constables week, when we were encouraged to go out with our local special constables to observe their valuable and committed work. On Friday night I spent some time in Sutton high street, visiting pubs and clubs virtually all of which were using systems that captured people’s ID—typically, their driving licences. I know that there is significant concern among the police about the extent to which any of those systems comply with the relevant data protection legislation by ensuring that the data that they capture are secure and are handled in an appropriate manner. I realise that that may be beyond the scope of the Bill, but I think that the Government could usefully consider it.

As for counter-terrorism, Members will know from what I said earlier about stop-and-search powers that I am pleased that they will be much more tightly defined. I also welcome the reduction in the maximum period for pre-charge detention from 28 days to 14, although organisations such as the Law Society and Liberty want to push us much further and faster in that regard. I consider 14 days to be a good starting point, but I am happy to leave open the option of introducing a shorter period.

In relation to terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which are being dealt with separately to some extent, let me say as an aside that I hope we will be given more clarification of precisely what is being proposed. I do not want control orders to be replaced by something that looks very much like them. I should also like clarification of what will replace curfews, and I want to know that what we propose as a Government is a system that will focus on securing prosecutions rather than simply containing people.

On safeguarding vulnerable groups and criminal records, I welcome the fact that the vetting and barring scheme will be changed, and that 9 million people will be taken out of the scheme. Simply classifying and categorising people does not guarantee safety, and creating massive databases does not necessarily provide a solution to all the security and safety problems. We have to be more subtle and sophisticated than that.

I welcome the changes on consensual gay sex, and I am sure the Minister is aware of the concerns that, as far as possible, every single record that relates to that previously illegal activity should be deleted. I know there are challenges in terms of how to go beyond cleaning electronic data, but I hope that that can be dealt with comprehensively.

The freedom of information changes are very welcome, although not all aspects of the freedom of information ten-minute rule Bill that I have pressed on two separate occasions in the last three or four years will be picked up. I hope they will be, perhaps in the protection of freedoms (No. 2) Bill, when we get round to that in, I hope, the second half of this Parliament. I do not see any reason why very large private sector organisations that are, in effect, doing public sector work should not be subject to FOI in the same way as the public sector. If they are simply taking on what was previously done by the public sector, to which FOI legislation would have applied, it would be appropriate for it to apply to private sector organisations now doing that work.

I welcome the fact that we will preserve trial by jury and that we are restoring such rights.

In the past couple of weeks, we have watched with astonishment the courage, bravery and thirst for freedom of the Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans, who have been desperate to embed some of the most basic freedoms in their societies. We have a more straightforward task. We have started the process of restoring some of our most cherished rights in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, and will, I hope, continue that process in the protection of freedoms (No. 2) Bill, which I hope will be introduced in the second half of this Parliament, and which I would expect to pick up on some of the issues raised—such as what the hon. Member for Gainsborough said about free speech, so that the concerns of Dr Evan Harris about removing the word “insulting” can be addressed.

We must maintain the momentum. With freedoms, we can never afford to stand still; we are always swimming against the current. This Bill demonstrates that the coalition is starting to reverse the tide, and that an unprecedentedly great rolling back of the state is under way.