Backbench Business Committee

Representations: Backbench Debates

Tuesday 10 January 2023

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 10 January 2023.

Watch the meeting

Members present: Ian Mearns (Chair); Kevin Foster; Patricia Gibson; Chris Green; Wendy Morton; Nigel Mills; Kate Osborne.

Questions 1-6

Representations

I: Jim Shannon and Carla Lockhart.

Written evidence from witnesses:

– [Add names of witnesses and hyperlink to submissions]

Jim Shannon and Carla Lockhart made representations.

Q1                Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. We anticipate Divisions soon, so we thought we would get started as soon as we could. We have one application in front of us, from Mr Jim Shannon, who is no stranger to the Committee. Welcome, and happy new year. It is nice to see you again. Your application is for a debate on the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme pathway 3. Tell us why you are making the application.

Jim Shannon: First of all, a happy new year to you and the Committee. I hope that 2023 brings you all the things that you want. Perhaps it will, and perhaps it won’t, but whatever it does, it does.

I declare an interest as chair of the APPG on international freedom of religion or belief. For some time, Members in the Chamber have been asking for this debate, because many on both sides of the Chamber are concerned about how the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme pathway 3 is going. The APPG sought support for the debate from a number of Members; a fairly cross-party list of colleagues wish to speak, including Conservative, Labour, Green, and Scottish National party Members, as well as Members from our party. My colleague Carla Lockhart is here to support me.

On 6 January 2022, the Minister for Afghan Resettlement formally opened the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. The scheme has three pathways. The third was to provide safe immigration routes to resettle 20,000 people who are particularly vulnerable. That includes religious minorities, ladies, and members of the LGBT community. Despite numerous written questions, and oral questions that I and other Members have asked in both the Commons and the Lords, there is little transparency about the number of people resettling in the UK under pathway 3. I want to use the debate to be inquisitive about that.

One year on, the situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate. We all know it; I have been watching it with sadness. The return of a strict version of sharia law has led de facto to the death penalty for LGBT individuals, and has stripped women of the right to work; that was obvious two weeks ago, when NGOs withdrew their support from Afghanistan. Women cannot get an education or even leave the home unaccompanied. None of us can really understand how that can be, but in Afghanistan, it is unfortunately an issue.

Religious minorities, particularly the Hazaras, have faced increased violent attacks from Isis and the Taliban, leading to credible claims of genocidal activity. It is the anniversary of the opening of pathway 3; that is why we have asked for the debate. It is unfortunately clear that there are increased threats to the groups that the pathway is meant to help. Given the pathway’s lack of transparency and effectiveness, it is reasonable to hold a debate on the topic, so I request one, if possible.

I think that there is interest in the subject. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a compassionate country. All four regions want compassion to be shown to those who have had to abandon their country because of what is happening. We do not see the way forward on pathway 3; a debate would perhaps encourage the Government and the Minister responsible to focus attention on the issue. As the interest comes from Members from all parts of the Chamber, I think that the debate would be worthy of a 90-minute slot, wherever you feel it would be appropriate. Thank you.

Q2                Chair: Thank you very much, Jim. The application is in order. Carla, is there anything you want to add?

              Carla Lockhart: I support my colleague’s application; he spoke passionately about it.

Q3                Kevin Foster: To clarify, which Department would you like to answer the debate, Mr Shannon?

              Jim Shannon: Would it not be the FCDO? It was responsible for the scheme, but I am not a fount of knowledge on some things, so I am happy to go with whoever the responsible Minister is; you know better than I do.

Q4                Kevin Foster: For example, would you look to the Home Office to respond, given that it usually leads on issues such as settlement and the granting of visas?

              Jim Shannon: I defer to your knowledge. I agree; yes, the Home Office is okay. Thank you.

Q5                Chair: It just so happens, Mr Shannon, that there is a slot on the 19th, which is only a week and two days away, in Westminster Hall. Would you be willing to accept that?

              Jim Shannon: Yes; I will take whatever you give me. I am always very pleased to accept any option. You will not find me too hard to please.

Q6                Chair: Would you happen to know where Westminster Hall is?

              Jim Shannon: I fell out of it about 10 minutes ago, and I hope to fall back into it in another 10 minutes.

Chair: I had a funny feeling that I could hear your footsteps coming from that direction. There is a possibility of that date; I will confirm it later this afternoon, if that is okay. Any further questions, colleagues? No? In that case, Jim, thank you very much. Carla, it was nice to see you.

              Jim Shannon: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, and thanks to the Committee. You are always very good.