Freedom of Religion or Belief in China

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine in the Chair]

14:30

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Jardine. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this important debate on freedom of religion or belief in China.

I would like to open with a tragic story. On a hot August day in 2022, in Shanxi, northern China, more than 100 police officers descended on a Christian family summer camp, surrounding the gathering, forcibly searching and detaining dozens of believers—over 30 adults and 40 children. The police were breaking up not a dangerous gathering or insurgency, but a family day out. The camp was organised by an unregistered church called the Linfen Covenant House Church, and was a harmless event aimed at building church community. In the months that followed, pastors Li Jie and Han Xiaodong were arrested and reportedly subjected to harsh interrogation, including sleep deprivation, humiliation and torture. Church member Wang Qiang was later detained and tortured for weeks after refusing to renounce his faith or fabricate testimony against the church leaders.

It took three years for the court to process that case, but justice was nowhere to be found. Prosecutors did not accuse the pastors of violence or any threat to society—they could not. Instead, they charged them with fraud, arguing that the voluntary offerings given by members of their unregistered church were somehow illegal. Pastors Li Jie and Han Xiaodong were each sentenced to three years and eight months in prison and fined heavily, while church member Wang Qiang received a sentence of one year and 11 months. The community church insists that the three men had committed no crime, and that they had suffered simply because of their faith.

We have all come here today because we believe that freedom of religion or belief is not a secondary liberty; it goes to the heart of human dignity. It concerns the right to hold beliefs, to change beliefs, to have no belief, to worship in public and private, to teach and to live according to conscience without fear of intimidation, criminalisation, imprisonment or torture. That is why Parliament cannot look away, and why the situation in China requires ongoing and determined scrutiny.

What is taking place in China is not merely the sporadic mistreatment of a few isolated believers, nor is it the meddling of local officials. What we are seeing is the rolling out of a sophisticated system of repression, in which law, administration, surveillance, propaganda and coercion are all being weaponised to subordinate religion to the Chinese Communist party. The issue before us is not only persecution; it is the construction of an entire architecture designed to make genuine freedom of religion or belief impossible.

China’s persecution of religion comes under the broad policy initiative of Sinicisation. That term is made to sound mild, as if it refers only to making religion compatible with Chinese culture, but that is not the case; instead, it is political domestication. It means that every religious tradition must first be made subordinate to the ideology, priorities and authority of the Communist party. The goal is not merely to make religion Chinese, but to ensure that religion is stripped of its independence and made to serve the party’s political project.

Sacred texts can be reinterpreted, clergy can be screened and managed, venues can be monitored, publications can be censored, foreign links can be severed, and anything that escapes that framework can be branded illegal, extremist, fraudulent, subversive, or labelled as a cult. Religion must not simply co-exist with the party; it must be remade in the party’s image. Recent Sinicisation policies mean that all clergy must support the leadership of the Communist party, and must be evaluated and ideologically disciplined. All online or in-person religious activity requires a permit from Government. No child can be given religious education.

Furthermore, the sad story of the Linfen community church, which I referred to in my opening remarks, demonstrates that in China the law is always secondary to the will of the Chinese Communist party. China’s constitution appears to protect so-called normal religious activities, but in practice that protection is a joke. The same is true of China’s legal system. The party retains overriding authority over state institutions, including the courts and legislature. In other words, rights exist only to the extent that the party permits them to exist.

Evidence gathered by Christian Solidarity Worldwide takes us deeper. It shows how the law in China is drafted in deliberately vague terms to condemn believers, vaguely accusing them of “harming national interests”, “disrupting social order”, “resisting infiltration” or “extremism.” Such phrases are not carefully bounded legal concepts; they are instruments of selective enforcement. They create uncertainty by design and allow ordinary religious life to be reclassified as a threat.

As we saw with the Linfen community church, the vagueness of the rules means that donation to an unregistered church can be reframed as fraud. Similarly, a Bible study can become an illegal gathering; publishing or sharing religious materials can become an illegal business operation; and a sermon can become incitement to subversion. This is not neutral law enforcement; it is ideological criminalisation. Then, when the full weight of the justice system is brought down upon a believer, the defendant themselves becomes subject to serious procedural abuses. Lawyers are denied access to defendants, cases are shrouded in secrecy, and detainees can be isolated from family and counsel for prolonged periods, placed in legal black holes where torture and coercion become far more likely.

The case of the Linfen community church tells us a great deal. It tells us that family church life can be raided; it tells us that children are not shielded from the machinery of repression; it tells us that secret detention and torture remain live concerns; and it tells us that “fraud” is being used not as an honest response to dishonesty, but as a legal fiction to criminalise churches that refuse to submit to state control.

The situation in Xinjiang illustrates one of the most severe forms of ethno-religious persecution in China today, and as chair of the all-party group on Uyghurs, this topic is very close to my heart. Since 2016, the Xinjiang region has been transformed into one of the most heavily policed areas in the world, under a so-called counter-extremism campaign, marked by pervasive surveillance, forced interrogation and mass incarceration. It is worth pointing out that not all Uyghurs are Muslim and that non-Muslim Uyghurs are also persecuted.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. With respect to the Uyghurs, does she agree that what we are witnessing in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China is not simply a matter of restricted religious freedoms, but something far more grave? She points to the fact that the Uyghurs are subject to mass detentions and so-called re-education camps, and are used in forced labour by the Chinese Government. Does she agree that this bears all the hallmarks of crimes against humanity and, as many credible voices have argued, may well constitute a genocide?

[Ms Rimmer]

I do agree, and I will come to that later. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has said more than I was going to say—I thought I was saying too much. Yes, he is absolutely right, and it is dangerous for us all.

The situation in Xinjiang illustrates one of the most severe forms of ethnoreligious persecution in China. It is worth pointing out that not all Uyghurs are Muslim, and not all Muslim Uyghurs are persecuted. Independent estimates suggest that between 1 million and 2 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have been detained in camps and prisons, with many later transferred into long-term sentences. Alongside that, Uyghur imams, scholars and religious leaders have been systematically targeted, with many detained in prisons for decades or dying in custody, underscoring the deliberate dismantling of religious leadership and community life. Uyghurs have been punished for everyday religious practice, including praying, fasting during Ramadan, teaching the Quran or even using traditional greetings, while mosques and shrines have been demolished and altered, children separated into state-run schools, and homes subjected to constant monitoring.

At the same time, ordinary expressions of the Islamic faith have been criminalised, and the wider system of repression has expanded beyond detention into forced labour, cultural destruction and enforced assimilation. Coercive labour transfer programmes have expanded across multiple sectors, with significant global implications for supply chains. The trajectory is now being further entrenched through new legislation, including the 2026 ethnic unity law, which promotes a single national identity, expands ideological control over religion and culture, and introduces broad penalties for behaviour that is deemed to undermine ethnic unity, effectively formalising a system that has already devastated the Uyghurs’ religious and cultural life. Thanks to many hard-working advocates —such as Rahima Mahmut, Benedict Rodgers and Lord Alton, to name a few—the Uyghur tribunal has concluded that a genocide is taking place in China, including through the sterilisation of Uyghur women. That finding was echoed by the UK Parliament, which voted to recognise the atrocities as a genocide in April 2021.

Evidence from human rights organisations describes the regulations governing Tibetan Buddhist temples, reincarnation and monastic education, including the prohibition on allowing children of compulsory school age to study scriptures in temples. Ordinary religious expression is recast as a threat to state security. Falun Gong practitioners have also faced extreme persecution, including arrests, torture and deaths in custody, with figures suggesting that more than 2,800 were arrested in 2024 alone. A mounting body of evidence presented in 2019 at the China tribunal chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC—the same person who chaired the Uyghur tribunal—pointed to the conclusion that Falun Gong practitioners have been the victims of a state-run programme of forced organ harvesting. It is unbelievable what went on there.

It is clear now that religious persecution in China has two aspects: the careful controlling of a narrow, politicised form of religion, and the outright repression of all other expressions of that faith. We see that clearly in the systemic persecution of Chinese Christians.

First, we see the careful controlling of a narrow and highly politicised form of Christianity. The so-called Three-Self Patriotic Movement, a state-sponsored form of Chinese Christianity, is presented by the authorities as the legitimate framework for Protestant worship. This is not simply a matter of registration; it is a matter of subordination. In regulating the churches, the state claims the right to decide which churches may legally exist, which pastors may lawfully preach, which cameras are installed above the doors, what theology may be taught and what children may hear. Registration does not guarantee safety; even registered churches have still been raided. That shows that the issue is not merely whether a church is registered, but whether it remains sufficiently obedient to party priorities.

Secondly, we see the outright repression of all those who refuse to conform to that limited model. While local government officials might be able to turn a blind eye to small house church gatherings, they can crack down in a flash on congregations that risk growing too large, too noticeable or too direct in their political messaging. Unregistered churches are pressured to join the state system, and refusal can trigger raids, detention and prosecution. Even the smallest acts of worship, such as organising a bible study in a home, can be labelled as illegal gatherings, leading to detention and imprisonment.

When preaching is treated as a political crime, and when ordinary worship becomes a criminal offence, freedom of religion or belief is not merely restricted, but effectively denied. What binds all these examples together is not a single denomination or doctrine, but the party’s insistence that no independent moral, spiritual, communal or transnational authority may exist outside its control.

Why should the United Kingdom care? First, because freedom of religion or belief is universal. It is not diminished by geography, and it does not become negotiable because the offending state is economically powerful. Secondly, because the United Kingdom has long claimed a role as a defender of human rights and the international rules-based order. That claim rings hollow if, when confronted with a sophisticated system of ideological repression by a major power, we choose caution over candour. Thirdly, because the evidence before us shows that China’s repression is becoming more systematic, more legalised, more normalised and more exportable. A model in which freedom of religion or belief is hollowed out through licensing, digital surveillance, patriotic indoctrination, vague criminal law and selective prosecution is not only a domestic tragedy for China’s believers, but a profound challenge to international human rights norms.

Let me conclude with several clear points. The United Kingdom should state plainly that China’s Sinicisation programme is incompatible with genuine freedom of religion or belief. We should call for the release of prisoners of conscience who are detained on account of religion or belief, including Christian leaders, Uyghur and Hui Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, Falun Gong practitioners and others. We should condemn the persecution of Uyghurs as what it is—a genocide. We should press for transparency in administrative and criminal detention, an end to secret detention practices, proper access to lawyers and families, and due process consistent with international standards. We should support international efforts to establish a robust, independent UN mechanism capable of investigating China’s serious human rights violations, including against freedom of religion or belief. We should work with international partners on targeted sanctions against those responsible for gross abuse. We should ensure that UK trade engagement does not proceed as though forced labour, religious persecution, cultural erasure and ideological criminalisation are somehow separate from the overall character of the state with which we are dealing.

China’s believers are not asking this House to solve every problem in one debate, but they are entitled to expect a democratic legislature to tell the truth.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Given the 2021 parliamentary vote recognising the risk of genocide of the Uyghurs, does the hon. Member agree that the Government should be taking every step that they are obliged to take, under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, to prevent genocide in China?

[Ms Rimmer]

I have to say that I did not hear everything that the hon. Member said, but I think we should do whatever we can to bring the issue to a head, one way or another. We cannot just leave it as it is.

I urge the Government to make freedom of religion or belief in China a sustained priority in our diplomacy, multilateral engagement, sanctions policy and trade posture, because if freedom of conscience means anything, it must mean something when it is hardest to defend.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. Unfortunately, if they were not here at the start, I am not sure that I will be able to get them in.

14:52

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on her speech. Although I will talk primarily about the persecution of Christians in China, and particularly the intolerable position of the Catholic Church, I fully support what she and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) said about the persecution of Muslims. What is happening to the Uyghurs is absolutely intolerable.

In China, the institutionally entrenched ideological intolerance of Christianity and other religions stems back to 1949, and has continuously been perpetrated by the communist regime, often with extreme violence. An estimated 96.7 million Christians live in China; they are one of the largest Christian populations in the world. Religious groups are made to register with state-operated “patriotic associations”, and unregistered religious activity is illegal. Many Christians worship in unregistered house churches, which leaves them vulnerable to raids, fines and detention.

China currently ranks 17th on the 2026 world watch list, with a persecution score of 79 out of 100. In many regions of China, children under the age of 18 are widely prohibited from participating in religious activities. The restrictions reported include the suspension of Sunday school programmes, schools discouraging religious belief among students, and students being pressured to report religious activity within their families, which is probably the worst of all—something out of George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four”.

In September 2025, China introduced new regulations on the online behaviour of religious clergy. The rules require religious leaders to support the leadership of the CCP, promote socialist values and preach only on Government-approved online platforms.

Let me say a bit about the position of the Catholic Church. Catholics were hopeful that the 2018 agreement between the Vatican and the People’s Republic of China would heal wounds caused by the Communist party’s attempt to suppress Catholicism. The promise of reconciliation has, alas, not been realised. In some dioceses, the divisions between the actual Catholic Church in China and the state-backed so-called patriotic Church has actually deepened. Bishops who stood aside in the interests of unity have been marginalised and placed under surveillance for refusing to take part in state structures. State-controlled religious apparatus remains coercive. The Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association exercises extensive control over Catholic life in the People’s Republic.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Between 2017 and 2020, my daughter worked as a teacher in Shanghai. We visited her at Easter 2018, and I recall walking past the Catholic cathedral while the service was taking place on Easter morning, and it was overflowing. Later in the day, I attended a service at the church that my daughter went to, and there were 200 or 300 people there. There did not appear to be any repression of the services. Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that it has got much worse over the last three or four years?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The devil is in the detail. When it comes to China, everything is very complicated; there are no simple arguments or solutions. This is not an outright communist regime like North Korea. In theory, if someone is a Catholic, they are allowed to practise their faith, which is why my hon. Friend saw the church overflowing, but they have to practise in a way that is approved by the state.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The agreement the Catholic Church signed allowed the Government to approve the bishops and the structure. One of the criticisms that many have made, myself included, is that in getting that agreement the Catholic Church in a way turned its back on all the other Christians in China. It got something—not something great—but to do that, it did not then represent them. As the senior Christian Church in the world, it does bear some responsibility to see Christianity prosper, not go the other way. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. As I develop my speech, I will say that the Church and our leadership were perhaps naive in trusting the communist regime. The agreement is, frankly, proving to be worthless. That is often the case with China, as our own Government found in relation to Hong Kong.

Clergy are more or less required to align with the state body—the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association—in order to function properly in their parishes. The patriotic association has many levers of power at its disposal to use against those who refuse to conform to it, like those principled people mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) who for years were in underground churches. It is a case not of administrative oversight but of the direction of religion by the communist state. The Chinese Communist party has spent three quarters of a century attempting to effectively create an independent national church in China that will conform to the will of China’s secular rulers.

The Vatican-China agreement has resulted not in liberalisation but in stricter controls. Its full details have not been released—it is unbelievable—which prevents us from knowing its actual provisions. We do know from Chinese Catholics on the ground that institutional surveillance is continuing and increasing. State officials are now embedded into dioceses to monitor church life and report on it. In some areas, children are even banned from attending mass and other services. Seminarians are subject to political vetting, and clergy who trained abroad are often required to submit to the approval of the authorities and to retrain. Priests and religious personnel are required to surrender their passports. Surveillance, harassment and even imprisonment are normal.

The United Kingdom’s deal with China over Hong Kong gives us all cause for concern. The People’s Republic of China has continually run riot over it and made a mockery of it. Experience is showing that China is now doing the same with the Vatican’s agreement. We look to Pope Leo XIV for leadership and guidance. The agreement is up for periodic renewal. It has not been successful. We must be honest with ourselves and the world, even if that means not renewing the agreement.

Chinese Catholics and fellow Christians, as well as other persecuted minorities in China, should not have to suffer at the hands of the state. The United Kingdom must be vigorous in raising these subjects in diplomatic conversations. I say to the Minister that this must not just be an obligatory embarrassing aside, but a headline item in our interactions with the communist Chinese state.

15:01

[Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing the debate. This is not the first time that either of us have spoken on this topic in this place. I also pay tribute to the Father of the House for his speech. I hope that Pope Leo heeds his call and follows the example of his predecessor, John Paul II, in standing up to communism around the world.

I am delighted to see present the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has previously spoken passionately about the Uyghur Muslims in China. I am disappointed that he came in late, because I was looking forward to hearing his remarks. I hope you can fit him in at some point, Ms Jardine.

On 12 October 2020, as a member of the Petitions Committee I led a debate on China’s policy on its Uyghur population. The petition we debated asked the Government at the time to impose sanctions on China over its treatment of Uyghur Muslims, and had nearly 150,000 signatures. Many Members spoke of how Uyghur Muslims, a Turkic ethnic group native to Xinjiang, China, had been subject to mass detention, surveillance, forced labour and many other human rights abuses. It is a tragedy that, six years later, nothing has changed, and the Uyghurs still face unimaginable horrors.

Just 1.8% of China’s population is Muslim; however, the Chinese Government are making it almost impossible to practice Islam freely, thanks to strict, unlawful restrictions. Under the guise of preventing religious extremism, they target any form of expression of Islam, even if it is practised behind closed doors in someone’s home.

According to the House of Commons Library, over 1 million Uyghurs have been forced into re-education camps since 2017. These re-education camps are nothing of the sort. According to the BBC and other news sources, in these camps women were sexually assaulted, Muslims were forced to eat pork and detainees were subject to all forms of abuse. Simultaneously, in Xinjiang mosques were destroyed, halal food was hard to find and fasting during was Ramadan not allowed, making it impossible for Uyghurs to freely practice their religion and beliefs.

China views any practice associated with Islam as extremism. The Chinese Communist party wants to completely erase the Uyghur population, their culture and their way of life. The BBC has also revealed that women have experienced forced sterilisation, forced abortion, rape, assault and separation from their children and families. The Council on Foreign Relations claims that children have been sent to boarding schools without parental consent. The injustices that women and children face are nothing short of horrifying. As a democratic Government, we must continue to speak up for women and girls’ rights around the world, just as we have been doing here in the United Kingdom.

I think the same now as I thought in 2020, when I sat on the Opposition Benches. We as a country cannot be silent about China’s actions. They are not only a clear restriction on the ability to freely practice beliefs, but a threat to the existence of an entire group of people. It is nothing short of truly sickening.

The so-called re-education camps may have largely been abandoned since 2023 because the Chinese Communist party has adopted new methods, but freely practising Islam is still forbidden and punished. The methods of eradication have changed; the aim has not. The changes indicate not an easing of China’s policy, but an erasure of Uyghur culture, which has been dismantled, attacked and stamped out for years. The formal justice system is now being used to imprison people for reasons such as attending mosque services, sending texts containing verses from the Quran or contacting people from any of the 26 countries that China considers sensitive. Their crime, in China’s eyes, is simply having been born a Muslim.

Just last week, the Telegraph carried a story about a new shared identity law in China. The law, which my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston has touched on, was introduced to further assimilate Uyghurs by requiring pre-school children to learn Mandarin and giving Chinese characters priority over the scripts of minority languages. The Chinese Government also changed the name of 630 Uyghur villages. The end goal is the erosion of the cultural practices and rights of minority groups.

I am sure that I speak for everyone in this room when I say that I am especially appalled by reports of organ harvesting. It is horrific, repulsive and inhumane. It has no place in the 21st century. There are truly no words to describe the operation that the Chinese Communist party has been running.

China’s actions are affecting Uyghurs not only in China, but worldwide. The Thai Government deported 48 Uyghurs in February 2025, despite that Government’s incorporation of an international legal principle that bans countries from returning people to a place where they face the risk of persecution. China’s influence is evidently spreading: Beijing has pressured other Governments to repatriate Uyghurs who have fled China.

China denies to Uyghur Muslims communication with the rest of the world. That is why it is up to democratic Governments who believe in the rule of law to speak up with one voice and condemn the actions of the Chinese Communist party. Equally, we cannot stand by and let China’s influence spread. People should feel safe to freely practise their religious beliefs, and we must continue to acknowledge the human rights abuses that China has been committing for years. Human rights abuses should be called out, whoever commits them. We should not be afraid to stand up to them and speak out when we see or hear about them.

Given how difficult it is to hear from Uyghurs in China, the Government must listen to those around the world and their experiences. They provide a rare opportunity for us to hear about the brutality of their treatment. We must give them a voice and, more importantly, listen and respond to what they are saying. I therefore ask the Minister: in what ways are the Government communicating with Uyghurs around the world? I urge the Minister to continue making use of advocacy groups such as Stop Uyghur Genocide and the Muslim Association of Britain to truly listen to the horrific experience of Uyghur Muslims and understand how our Government can support them.

The freedom of religion or belief strategy, which was published in July 2025, highlights China as a focus country. Can the Minister give more details on how the strategy has helped those who face religious persecution in China, specifically Uyghurs, and on whether there are any new updates or changes to the way the strategy works? Does the Minister have any plans to introduce stronger sanctions, given that China is not improving its treatment of Uyghur Muslims? Our Government cannot refuse to impose harsher sanctions or pose harder questions because economic questions are at stake. When an entire religious group’s existence is threatened, we must stand alongside them. Not only is that in line with the Labour Government’s values, but it should be in line with humanity.

I would also like to know what the Government are doing specifically to support Uyghur women and children around the world. They, in particular, have been silenced and have faced gender-based violence. It is vital that we create new, different and tailored ways to give them a voice and support within the freedom of religion or belief strategy.

I do not want to be standing here in six years’ time with the same things happening: more abuse and more erosion of human rights. I do not want to be standing here with a Government who are afraid to stand up to China because they see it as economically powerful. I want something done, and I want it done now. It does not matter whether someone is Christian, Muslim or whatever religion they subscribe to. We are all humans, and we should stand up for the human race.

15:09

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for setting the scene incredibly well in this very important debate. Her unwavering commitment ensures that the persecution of religious minorities in China, an issue that too often risks being forgotten, remains a consistent and vital part of parliamentary discourse.

I give credit to the Minister and the Government for their part in championing freedom of religion or belief as a fundamental human right. Each Thursday morning, at business questions to the Leader of the House, I ask a question about somewhere across the world where there is discrimination and where freedom of religion is found wanting. To be fair to the Leader of the House and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, they always come back with a commitment within a week or 10 days. That is to be commended, and I thank the Minister and the Government for it. Our nation has long sought to stand at the forefront of global efforts to promote religious freedom. We recognise that faith is not merely a private conviction; it is a core pillar of identity, community, conscience and human dignity.

Through my work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I have learned how many of the freedoms that we take for granted are denied to millions around the world. Basic rights such as access to employment and the freedom to live in peace, practise one’s faith and hold one’s beliefs are routinely denied to Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong practitioners, Christians and many other minority groups in China. It is therefore vital that our Government continue to hold partners, allies and counterparts accountable for the national and international commitments that they have made.

For many of us, this is not the first time that we have discussed freedom of religion or belief in China. We are very aware of the injustices, persecution and systematic repression that many religious minorities continue to face, without respite or easement and without any sanction on the perpetrators. As the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston clearly outlined, more than a decade into President Xi Jinping’s rule, efforts to centralise control have resulted in heightened repression across the country, particularly in the years following the covid-19 pandemic.

The Chinese constitution claims to guarantee freedom of religious belief, especially under article 36, which recognises five officially sanctioned religions. On the ground, however, the opposite happens: ultimately, the authority of the Chinese Communist party supersedes those constitutional protections. Police routinely arrest, detain and harass leaders and members of so-called illegal religious groups that refuse to join state-sanctioned religious bodies. Their peaceful gatherings are disrupted. Many face imprisonment simply for practising their faith independently. There is no independent civil society. The freedoms of expression, association, assembly and religion remain severely restricted. Human rights defenders and those who are perceived as critics of the Government face persecution. I will mention some of them.

One of those individuals is the Chinese human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng, who is one of the APPG’s spotlight prisoners of conscience. He was first detained by the Chinese authorities in 2006. Prior to that, he was widely respected for taking on sensitive human rights cases, including defending religious minorities. Between 2006 and 2011, he was repeatedly disappeared and was subjected to severe beatings and torture. From 2011 to 2014, he served a prison sentence; he was released in August 2014. He was forcibly disappeared again from his home in Shanxi province on 13 August 2017. His disappearance is widely believed to be linked to his legal work defending human rights and religious minorities, particularly Christians and Falun Gong practitioners. His whereabouts remain unknown, but it is widely believed that he is being held in some form of detention.

I ask that the Minister ask his officials to investigate where Gao Zhisheng is. Alongside him are Pastor Ezra Jin, Renagul Gheni, Pastor Huang Yizi and Dr Wang Bingzhang. Along with countless others, they have experienced similar stories of repression, arbitrary torture, detention and forced disappearance. Those stories must not be ignored.

According to the 2024 Fund for Peace human rights and rule of law index, China ranks as the third worst country in the world for human rights. Out of approximately 175 countries, it is right up at the top in third place, chasing place No. 1. China and the Chinese Communist party want to do away with all human rights and all religious beliefs and control them in their entirety. That is deeply concerning and should not be overlooked in any of our diplomatic engagements with Chinese counterparts.

I want to acknowledge the important work of the UK-based non-governmental organisations and advocacy groups whose research and reporting continues to shed light on human rights abuses in China. Without their work and dedication, much of what we know today would remain hidden.

I recently had a conversation with a representative of the Chinese consulate in Northern Ireland. Boy, is that boy brainwashed! He was trying to tell me how things were in China, but he picked the wrong person that day. I gave him a wee bit of focus for his attention after he invited me to China. I said, “I’ll hardly be going, but I tell you what: whenever you stop persecuting the Christians, stop abusing the Falun Gong and stop massacring, killing and raping Uyghur Muslims, you and I will have a conversation.” I will also send him this speech, which will probably end up in his bin. He is the Chinese Communist party’s representative in Northern Ireland; I am watching him and he knows I am watching him. I hope he is watching us here on TV, by the way—just to let you know, I know where you are.

I have made a list of the many communities in China who are not free to practise their beliefs. More than 1 million Uyghur Muslims and other Turkic Muslim minorities have been detained without charge in so-called re-education or internment camps. Protestant and Catholic Christians face harassment, detention, imprisonment, fines and the closure of churches. Falun Gong practitioners and other independent spiritual groups have been labelled as evil cults since 1999. Many have been arrested, imprisoned and tortured. Tragically, there have been numerous reports of deaths in custody. Tibetan Buddhists face severe restrictions on religious expression, including surveillance, detention and torture for peaceful religious activities. Smaller religious groups and independent spiritual leaders are frequently targeted under broad social order laws.

Among those cases, we see a clear pattern. If you refuse to submit to state control and the Chinese Communist party, you are silenced—not you, Ms Jardine; I am referring to the generic “you”. We are given the opportunity to be a voice for the voiceless. We must ensure that those who are suffering persecution know that they are not forgotten. If the freedom of one religious community is taken away, we must send a message to the world that the freedoms of others can also be removed without consequence. Nothing is more important than human lives made vulnerable by our silence.

In everything we do, we must remember the Uyghur Muslims, the thousands of Christians worshipping in underground churches, the Falun Gong practitioners and the many other minority communities who face constant pressure to conform to the ideology of the Chinese Communist party or risk separation from their families, forced labour or even death. For me as a Christian, and for the many others here who have the same faith, this is not only a political responsibility, but an expression of spiritual solidarity. The deliberate dismantling of families and communities is especially devastating. Church leaders are removed from their homes and imprisoned simply for professing their faith in Jesus Christ. Parents are separated from their children. Congregations are dismantled.

Perhaps most troubling of all are the systematic restrictions placed on young people. Open Doors reports that those under the age of 18 are not permitted to attend even registered church services. Children are the future of any nation; we all know that. Preventing them from attending worship is not accidental. It is a deliberate attempt to shape the future by erasing faith from the next generation. I cannot imagine what it would be like to live in a society in which sharing my faith with my own children could result in punishment, surveillance or separation from them.

Faith is not simply something that we say or do. It is a fundamental part of who we are. In moments of despair and difficult headlines, we all look to hope. For Christians, that hope is found in Jesus Christ, the one who proclaims freedom for the captives and light for those in darkness.

I will draw to a close, ever mindful that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) will speak after me. I want to give him time to participate, because his words are important and we all look forward to hearing what he has to say. James 4:17 states:

“Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.”

As Christians, we adhere to that promise and hope that others will do likewise. As parliamentarians, we have both the opportunity and the responsibility to do good. We know what good must be done; I think, to be fair, that the Minister and our Government also know what good must be done. May these words strengthen our resolve to stand with all those who suffer. May they encourage us to act with courage and conviction, even in the face of much adversity.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I will have to call the first Front Bencher at 3.28 pm.

15:20

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I owe you an apology, Ms Jardine, for arriving late to the debate. I am grateful for your chairmanship, and grateful to be allowed in, having been delayed. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing the debate, and for being stalwart in all these issues about freedoms and rights of worship. I bow before her greater authority in this matter.

Much of what I wish to say has already been said. Therefore, in the short time available, I will try to cover the issues that are at stake. We have talked consistently about the problems in China. There are of course many other countries in the world where Christians and Muslims are persecuted, but it is in China that the collective persecution becomes an absolute, state-inspired problem.

The nature of what has been discussed already is quite remarkable. Look, for example, at the programme of Sinicisation of religion by law, and by deliberately abusive behaviour. Crosses must be removed from churches and domes, and the minarets of mosques must be demolished to make them look more like Chinese buildings. Pastors and imams are told to focus on religious teachings that reflect socialist values in line with those of China. Newly annotated versions of core religious texts, including the Bible, the Quran and others, have been issued back to places of worship, and what is left of the churches are regularly ordered to replace images of Jesus with pictures of Xi Jinping. Blatantly, boldly and in full view, China does not want to have any kind of worship beyond the worship of the communist, and in particular of Xi Jinping.

In March this year, China approved a new law that codifies ethnic assimilation, in contravention of China’s own constitution and of international law. It mandates that all children must be taught Putonghua before kindergarten and—interestingly—that they will therefore avoid all aspects of other religions as a matter of doctrine.

That brings me to two elements that I want to focus on. First, as has been said well by hon. Members in this debate, the Uyghurs are suffering a genocide. There is no question about it. The Chinese authorities find them a deeply troublesome group. They are not Han Chinese, and that is what most Chinese policy is about. At the core of the dislike of the Uyghurs lies their Muslim belief. What astounds me so often is that we know about this. We have campaigned on it. I was sanctioned because of the campaign on the Uyghurs. It is interesting how easily people have been allowed to forget the issue and not raise it. I would love all the mosques in the United Kingdom to raise the plight of the Uyghurs, because it is the right thing to do. I would love Christian churches to constantly talk of the plight of the Uyghurs. The Uyghurs have, in many respects, become forgotten.

The persecution of the Uyghurs is appalling. Many hon. Members have talked about the nature of the re-education camps. When did we last hear about the concept of re-education camps? In Nazi Germany. It is astonishing. The women are persecuted and raped, and are now no longer having babies. The population of the Uyghurs has now collapsed because they are being forcibly sterilised, and the men are going off to forced labour—it is so obvious; millions have gone.

By the way, to those who like the free market, I should underline the point that forced labour completely undermines the free market. How can anyone compete with a country that uses forced labour on a grand scale to make products and drive out competitors? There is, in every respect, an absence of tolerance to Christianity, Islam and Buddhism—we too often forget about the persecution of Tibetan Buddhists, nearly a quarter of a million of whom are in forced labour camps, rather like the Uyghurs.

What is happening to the Uyghurs is a terrible travesty, but I also want to speak about Christianity and Christian churches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who I have a huge amount of time for, raised the issue of the role of the Catholic Church. I have to say to him that, since I set up the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, we have tried to extract from the hierarchy in the Catholic Church—I say this, by the way, as a Catholic—the text of what it agreed with the Chinese Government, and we have never been able to. It has never been published. We have never been able to refer to it. All we are asking for is that it be laid out in the open, so that we can see, first of all, whether the Chinese stick to their arrangements and, secondly, whether there was any provision for other Christians in China.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Holy See, and therefore I go regularly to the Vatican to talk to Archbishop Gallagher, the Foreign Minister of the Vatican. He is an extremely clever, subtle and charming man, but it is very difficult to understand, despite having those personal conversations, what has actually been agreed. My view is that the Vatican is full of principled people who live in a moral dimension, and they are up against intellectual thugs, frankly. We have been sold a pup with this agreement, and we should reconsider it.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree with my right hon. Friend completely. Openness sometimes is a far better disinfectant for a problem than keeping it behind closed doors. As we know, the reality, even under the agreement, is pretty appalling. The Chinese get to appoint the bishops they want. People cannot have church house meetings. All the Protestants and other free churches now suffer massive persecution; they can be closed down because the umbrella of the Catholic Church has moved away from them.

What do we know about China? China is petrified about what happened to it, to Poland and eventually to the Soviet Union: the Catholic Church eventually broke down the whole adherence to communism in Poland; that infected pretty much the rest of the Soviet Union, which then collapsed. China is petrified that it will face the same. The only reason it did a deal with the Catholic Church at all was to try to put off the idea that it would be influential, and it has succeeded in that respect. I am very sorry that the previous Pope and the current Pope did not take it upon themselves to pursue this issue and sort it out. I take no pleasure in criticising the Church that I am a member of, but we have to be honest about this. The situation in China for Christians is appalling. We could have done more, and the Catholic Church could have done more, but we forget the Buddhists, we forget the Muslims, and we forget the others whose right to practise free faith has gone as well.

Before anybody says that I am only on the attack against the Labour Government, I want to say that I am not: when my party was in government, I was as much a thorn in their side as I am now in the side of the Labour Government. It is just the reality, and we have to face up to the facts. The recent visit by the Prime Minister to China was a problem. I simply say this to the Government. When the Minister responds to the debate, he must understand what has already been said by one of his colleagues: does economics trump freedom, freedom of religion and freedom of speech? If it does, we have gone down a bad road. If it does not, then why are we doing this right now?

15:26

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing this important debate. Engagement without condition is not diplomacy; it is complicity. Promoting the values of democracy, respect for the rule of law and protection of religious freedoms must be the cornerstone of any serious British foreign policy, particularly foreign policy with a country that has outright rejected the values of democracy. Yes, China is a major global power, and yes, Britain must engage with it on trade, climate change and the great shared challenges of our time, but engagement cannot come at the cost of our principles, because when we trade away our values, we diminish not only ourselves but the very idea of Britain as a force for good in the world—an idea that has already taken a solid beating in recent years after the last Government’s cuts to the Department for International Development and this Government’s refusal to reverse them.

We have accepted that the people of China will not have democracy—a decision that will weaken their society from top to bottom—but turning a blind eye to the Chinese Communist party’s human rights abuses requires some mental gymnastics, because they sit in plain sight. The CCP’s actions in Hong Kong are openly intended to snuff out any remaining hope of a return to democracy, and its openly autocratic ambitions for Taiwan are clearly in breach of an international order that is grounded in sovereignty and freedom, revealing a fear of the accountability that democracy enables. Most disturbingly of all, we have seen years of coverage, research and evidence on what is clearly a genocide against the Uyghurs.

It is true to say that some degree of realism holds water in the practice of international relations, but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are clear about where the red lines are. We are clear that freedom of belief should not be reclassified as a western luxury. It is a universal human right that is set out in the UN charter, and which has been established as a principle in the hearts and minds of conscientious people the world over, yet religion exists in China only at the pleasure of the state. China operates a centrally directed system of ideological control to stifle hearts as much as it stifles minds. It is clear that China operates a centrally directed, ideological and coercive policy of assimilation that is rooted in ethnic nationalism, intolerance and the regime’s demand for absolute authority.

China’s economic rise is undeniable. It has lifted millions of people out of poverty and reshaped the global economy. Under President Xi, China has become an even bolder systemic rival to the open and democratic rules-based order that we believe in, leading some in the west to argue that China’s economic success warrants a rethink of the kinds of values that we are willing to tolerate in the global order. But let me be clear: we must not follow that path to its logical and awful conclusion—a world where the liberal values that built not just strong economies, but flourishing and vibrant societies, are jettisoned in favour of nihilism and a belief that “might makes right” and that independence of thought is worth trading for raw economic output.

Britain faces a choice—not about whether to engage, as we must, but about how we engage. Silence in the face of oppression is not neutrality, but weakness at the very least and acquiescence at worst. I fear that this Labour Government risk drifting into that silence through their pursuit of closer economic ties, with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor appearing willing to turn the other cheek to abuses not just in China, but here in our own country. In my constituency of Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park, I represent many Hongkongers who came to this country because they believed that Britain would stand for their freedoms when others would not—a belief encouraged by the introduction of the British national overseas visa scheme, which is one of the few positive things that the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip ever did as Prime Minister. It is a belief that mattered urgently, following the imposition of the national security law.

We have all seen that law unfold before our eyes. Independent media have been silenced in Hong Kong, democratic voices have been imprisoned, and academic and artistic voices that speak out against the CCP have been chillingly dismantled. Thousands of people have been arrested as political prisoners, including the British national Jimmy Lai, who now faces the rest of his life in prison for daring to exercise his freedom of speech. China has banned Jimmy Lai from receiving the sacrament from the priests who occasionally visit him—a gross violation of his religious freedom.

Instead of making the case of Jimmy Lai a priority, the Prime Minister has followed a strategy of kowtowing to Beijing, which has already compromised the UK’s security. Frankly, his greenlighting of the Chinese embassy in the heart of London is his biggest national security mistake to date, and presents an open door for the ramping up of Chinese spying in our country. He has also sent the utterly shameful message to Hongkongers—many of whom have already been targeted, intimidated and coerced by the CCP on our own streets—that he prioritises trade deals over their safety.

It is time for the Prime Minister to show some backbone in his dealings with President Xi. He must call louder for the release of Jimmy Lai and challenge Xi personally on the bounties that have been raised against Hong Kong activists in the UK. He recently spoke about putting the national interest first in his foreign policy. I invite the Minister to confirm whether the Prime Minister will take that approach when he next meets the Chinese Government, because it is clearly not the case today. I would also like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister to confirm that nobody who is here through the British national overseas scheme because they wish to live freely in a democracy will be forcibly sent back into the CCP’s arms if they fail to pass something as arbitrary as an English-language test to qualify for indefinite leave to remain.

There are other critical things that the Government must not shy away from discussing with Beijing. Let us be clear that the Chinese state has constructed a system of control against the Uyghur Muslim population so intrusive and calculated that it cannot be dismissed as anything other than co-ordinated genocide. We see mass internment camps, forced labour and relentless surveillance operating at an incredible scale. At the heart of the human rights abuses in Xinjiang, we see an attempt to erase the Uyghur identity itself. Faith, language and culture are being stripped away in the name of CCP control. This is a genocide. The Labour party in opposition was willing to call it that, and Parliament voted in 2021 to recognise it as such, but the Government have yet to confirm their position.

I will ask the Minister several questions in closing, each of which I hope he will address, because my constituents, British nationals and people around the world want to hear his answers. Will he tell us candidly whether economic calculations have led the Government to reverse their position on whether a genocide has taken place? If he argues that they have not, I invite him—without compromising classified information—to present evidence to the House to support that claim. I also ask him to confirm whether sanctions are still under review for individuals and entities complicit in infringements of the freedom of speech, region or belief, or any other manner of human rights abuses. On trade and supply chains, will the Minister commit to a ban on imports from regions where there is documented evidence of forced labour? If not, why not? If so, can he confirm that these will be Magnitsky-style sanctions that make use of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018?

I really hope the Minister will answer those questions because the British public deserve to know ahead of the next China visit, whenever it may occur, which path the Government have chosen—silent acquiescence and weakness, or a Britain that has the courage of its convictions and is not afraid to call out injustice on the world stage once more.

15:37

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on securing this important debate on Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China.

I thank all Members who have taken the time to participate in this debate, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). And I say this with all sincerity: no debate in Westminster Hall, particularly on freedom of religion or belief, would be complete without a contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Members on both sides of the House have demonstrated their determination to continue to raise this important matter in this place.

Freedom of religion or belief is one of the most fundamental human rights. It is the right to hold beliefs, practise them openly and live according to one’s conscience without fear of persecution. That principle lies at the very heart of the international human rights framework, and the United Kingdom has historically championed it across the world. Yet in China today, we see deeply troubling evidence that that freedom is being systematically eroded. Nowhere is that more evident than in Xinjiang, where credible reports have documented the widespread repression of the Uyghur Muslims and other minority communities, as we have heard. There is extensive evidence of mass detention, forced labour, the destruction of religious sites and the suppression of religious practices. Mosques have reportedly been demolished or repurposed, and individuals have faced punishment simply for expressing their faith. These are not isolated incidents; they form part of a wider pattern of state control over religion. 

Similar concerns arise in Tibet, where, as we have heard, Tibetan Buddhists continue to face restrictions on their religious life and cultural identity. Monasteries are closely monitored, religious leaders face intense scrutiny, and the ability of communities to practise their faith freely is severely constrained. For many Tibetans, religion is inseparable from culture and identity, so these restrictions go far beyond matters of worship.

There are also growing concerns about religious freedom in Hong Kong. For many years, Hong Kong stood as a place where religious communities could operate with relative freedom. However, following the imposition of the Hong Kong national security law, civil society has come under increasing pressure, and the space for freedom, including religious freedom, has narrowed significantly.

The case of Jimmy Lai, the publisher and democracy campaigner, remains a stark example of that wider erosion of liberty. For years, Mr Lai has been imprisoned for his peaceful advocacy of democratic values. His case has become emblematic of the shrinking freedoms in Hong Kong and has rightly drawn strong concern from Members right across this House, some of whom are here today.

Freedom of religion or belief does not exist in isolation. It flourishes only where other fundamental freedoms—speech, assembly and the rule of law—are protected. That is why this debate is so important. It is not simply about one right among many, but about the wider ecosystem of freedoms that allows a society to flourish.

Historically, the United Kingdom has played a leading role in defending those freedoms. Our diplomats have worked through international institutions; our Ministers have raised concerns directly with their counterparts; and Parliament has consistently spoken with moral clarity when human rights are under threat. However, in recent months there has been discussion about a potential “reset” in the United Kingdom’s relationship with China. Engagement between nations is of course necessary—I understand that. China is a major global power and dialogue is essential on issues ranging from trade to climate change, but we should engage with China from a position of strength. That means being clear-eyed about where we have leverage and using it responsibly in defence of our values.

In that context, issues such as the decision on the proposed new Chinese embassy in London take on a wider significance. Approving such a development without securing meaningful progress on issues such as human rights risks giving up important leverage prematurely. Engagement must therefore be principled, co-ordinated and rooted in a firm commitment to the freedoms we seek to uphold, but engagement must never come at the expense of our values.

I hope that the Minister will address a number of important questions when he responds. First, as part of any diplomatic engagement with Beijing, have the Government raised the issue of freedom of religion or belief directly with the Chinese authorities, and if so, what response did they receive?

Secondly, will the Government continue to work with partners at the United Nations to highlight human rights concerns in China? Previous Governments played an important role in co-ordinating joint statements on abuses in Xinjiang and elsewhere. Do Ministers intend to continue building those coalitions internationally?

Thirdly, can the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to protect individuals in the United Kingdom from transnational repression? In recent years, there have been increasing concerns about intimidation, surveillance and pressure being directed at diaspora communities here in the UK. Individuals who speak out about religious freedom or human rights abroad must be able to do so without fear of harassment or coercion on British soil.

Finally, I would welcome clarity on how human rights considerations are being weighed in the Government’s broader relationship with China. There has been considerable public debate about the proposed redevelopment of the Chinese embassy, on the Royal Mint Court site, into what would become the largest Chinese embassy complex in Europe. Many have raised concerns about the symbolic and practical implications of that project, given the wider human rights context. Planning decisions must of course follow the proper legal process, but the Government must recognise the strength of feeling that exists when questions of national security, human rights and foreign policy intersect in this way, and they must surely understand why so many people oppose the development of a new Chinese embassy in London.

The United Kingdom has long prided itself on being a country that stands up for liberty and the rule of law. Those principles have shaped our history, our institutions and our place in the world. When people are persecuted for their faith, whether they are Muslims in Xinjiang, Buddhists in Tibet, Christians facing restrictions in China, or religious communities under pressure in Hong Kong, we simply cannot look the other way. The credibility of our foreign policy depends on our willingness to speak clearly and consistently about such issues. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that freedom of religion or belief remains a central pillar of the UK’s foreign policy, and that in our engagement with China, we will continue to stand firmly on the side of those whose fundamental freedoms are under threat.

15:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, I think for the second time since you joined the Panel of Chairs. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing this important debate, and I appreciate the thoughtful contributions by hon. Members from across the House. They have sent a clear signal of the deep and shared concern in this place about the challenges faced by faith and belief communities across China.

Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right that sits at the heart of the UK’s wider human rights approach. The Government strategy on this topic was published last summer. It makes it plain that this fundamental human right is an important part of our foreign policy. As part of our strategy, we are focusing on 10 priority countries where we judge that we can make the biggest difference in defending that right; China is among them. That is the right thing to do and is firmly in our national interest: we know that countries that uphold fundamental rights and the rule of law are more stable, prosperous and resilient. When freedom of religion or belief comes under pressure, it is so often the case that other rights quickly follow.

Those who wish to exercise their right to freedom of religion or belief in China face deep restrictions. Communities are limited in being able to practice their faith freely, including the Uyghur and other Turkic Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, Catholic and Protestant Christians, and Falun Gong practitioners. As I think every Member mentioned today, we continue to see extensive state control over freedom of religion or belief across different communities, including intrusive surveillance, restrictions on worship, requirements for political education and arbitrary detention.

In Xinjiang, the scale and severity of those violations affecting the Uyghur and other Turkic Muslim communities remain of deep and long-standing concern. With Ramadan underway and Eid approaching, we are especially mindful of reports of restrictions on fasting and religious observance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) mentioned, and the continued pressure that those communities face. In Tibet, sustained interference in monastic life, cultural expression and the appointment of religious leaders continues to pose a profound challenge to the perseverance of Tibetan Buddhism and identity.

We have also witnessed continued pressure on Christian communities, and the arrest of Zion church leaders in October was a stark reminder of the growing constraints on pastors and Christian worship more broadly. Many churches have endured closures, intimidation and intensified surveillance, all of which point to the shrinking space for independent Christian worship. Falun Gong practitioners continue to face intimidation, restrictions on assembly and arbitrary detention. Those who practice outside China face serious threats and harassment linked to their beliefs.

The Government have been clear that China must uphold its international obligations. As a signatory to the universal declaration of human rights, we expect China to observe the obligations that it has freely accepted. Individuals should be free to practice or not practice religion or belief according to their conscience without fear, coercion or discrimination.

I am grateful to hon. Members for the points, observations and questions they have raised in this debate. Let me specifically address the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for St Helens South and Whiston and for Caerphilly about the ethnic unity law. China’s ethnic unity law risks further tightening controls over culture, religion and language. We will continue as a Government to monitor developments, and we will not hesitate to raise our concerns with China. We urge China to respect its obligations under international and national law.

Although I cannot pre-empt specifics on future diplomatic engagements, the UK will consistently raise concerns about minority rights wherever we engage with Chinese counterparts, both bilaterally and in co-ordination with international partners; I will come to some of the questions about the United Nations shortly. We advance freedom of religion or belief in China in three ways: by raising concerns privately and publicly, by using our influence during bilateral and multilateral engagements and by supporting communities across China that are affected by violations.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I have not taken part in a debate with him on this subject, either on the Floor of the House or in this Chamber in my six months as the Minister or in my 10 years in the House. He is a true champion of freedom of religion or belief. I pay tribute to his absolute steadfast dedication to not just those of Christian faith but all those who hold faith across this country and across the world. If he writes to me about the Chinese human rights lawyer—forgive me, but I could not catch the gentlemen’s name—I am more than happy to ask my officials to investigate and come back to him in writing.

The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly asked about our bilateral engagements. We are committed to challenging China where we must, and our bilateral engagement on this matter is firm and consistent. I should tell the House, particularly in response to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), that the Prime Minster has raised these concerns on human rights abuses and freedom of religion and belief. The Chancellor and Ministers have raised those abuses, as have the Foreign Secretary and the former Foreign Secretary. I understand that that was the case under the previous Government, too. We have a unity of purpose, and we will call out religious persecution where we see it in our multilateral and bilateral relationships.

The UK has continually raised concerns about violations affecting faith communities. We monitor developments closely and raise cases directly with authorities whenever that is appropriate. Those conversations are not easy, but they are essential. It is because we maintain engagement that we can raise the hardest issues directly, including on freedom of religion or belief, and we do so at the highest levels.

Many Members raised the Prime Minister’s recent visit to China. I wonder if some Members do not follow the news or statements on the Floor of the House, but the Prime Minister raised the points that many Members have raised today directly with President Xi, and he said that in his statements on the Floor of the House. Senior Ministers have raised those abuses with their counterparts and we will continue to do so, for the record. That sustained engagement at senior levels ensures that our concerns are clearly heard and understood.

The shadow Minister and a number of colleagues raised issues around our support within the multilateral space. The shadow Minister is quite right to raise that the UK not only led the charge, but was the first country to lead the UN statement on human rights abuses in China. I can confirm that we will continue to lead that work in the multilateral space. That is why we work with international partners, not just in the UN but in the G7 and in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and through coalitions such as the Media Freedoms Coalition, which is central to our approach. I am pleased that we have been able to take the chair of the Media Freedoms Coalition; that means that we can focus on another form of abuse, on media freedom, over the next two years.

We use all possible levers to hold China to account for human rights abuses against the Uyghur, Tibetans, Christians and others. Last July, the UK hosted a side event at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to reaffirm the universal right to freedom of religion or belief, including for Tibetan Buddhists. I pay tribute to, and thank, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), who is the UK special envoy, for championing the UK’s commitment to that matter at the event and for reaffirming the right of Tibetans to choose their own religious leaders.

We will never shy away from calling on China to improve its record on freedom of religion or belief, and on human rights in general. To pick up on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly about violence against women and girls, he may not have seen that just yesterday the Foreign Secretary announced her pillars of work for the Government within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. One of them is specifically about tackling violence against women and girls globally, not just in the UK. It will remain an absolute priority that we call out that violence, not just in conflict but also in matters of human rights abuses across the world.

Many Members have raised the question of what the Government are doing now. On 2 March, the UK’s ambassador for human rights called on China to address reports of restrictions on religious and cultural freedoms and of forced labour—mentioned by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—and urged the release of all arbitrarily detained individuals. That work goes on constantly and all the time, and will continue to do so under this Government.

The shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson mentioned Hong Kong, and specifically Jimmy Lai and the national security law imposed on Hong Kong to silence China’s critics. The Foreign Secretary could not be clearer that that is a political imposition and something that we do not support. The Foreign Secretary and other senior Ministers have also raised Mr Lai’s case, including the Prime Minister, who, during his visit, raised it directly with President Xi. That has opened up discussions of the most acute concerns directly with the Chinese Government at the highest levels. Following the sentencing fairly recently, we will rapidly engage in and continue to engage in Mr Lai’s case.

To conclude—I am conscious of time and the need to allow my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston to make her own concluding remarks—I again thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. The situation for many religious and belief communities in China remains extremely serious. The Government will continue to raise concerns at the highest levels, to press China to meet its international obligations, to work with international partners, and to support practical initiatives that defend that fundamental right. Freedom of religion or belief is and will remain a non-negotiable part of the UK’s engagement with China. We will remain steadfast in defending this right for everyone.

15:56

[Ms Rimmer]

There are few of us here today, but the speeches in this debate have been absolutely from the heart, sincere, and very detailed indeed. Members have not just come in and written out a speech; they are here because they have been living with this issue for years. They really believe in what they are saying, and we really want to see an outcome.

I was invited this morning to 1 Parliament Street and Room B with a group of children from a Manchester school; I think they were about seven or eight. They made me the bracelet that I am wearing. They taught me how to make it, but they had to do that because I could not thread the thread through the beads. Each bead represents a religion, and there are two of each colour all the way round. The booklet that comes with it tells us about religion.

I was thinking to myself about coming to this debate and what is going on in the world now. I was thinking about religion and belief and why people are fighting when they should not be. Every single religion is in this book and is represented with beads on this bracelet. It tells you what they are looking for and the peace message: treat others as you would like them to treat you. Everything comes down to the same thing, in different words. The children were pointing this out to me and saying, “We should all have a religion. Some people don’t, but they still believe in being kind to each other,” and I thought, “If only they could grow up and carry on through the world like that—keeping peace.” If only we could do that.

We have been focusing on the profoundly important issue of freedom of religion or belief. I thank my friends the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who put so much effort into the cause of freedom of religion or belief, and human rights. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) speaks out very often about it. I did not know of the interest in and passion for the cause of the Uyghurs that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) has, but certainly in his speech he was well involved in capturing that. He spoke about organ harvesting and about Xinjiang. It was wonderful to hear his commitment and his depth of understanding of what was going on. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) is just wonderful. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) has gone out of the Chamber. I am sorry that I could not hear all of his interventions to answer them. I thank them all very much, and the Minister for his responses. We will keep on at the Government. We are not going to go away.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China.