Oral Answers to Questions

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I am the one who has been in the conversations with the EU. I know that it does not particularly like the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, but, nevertheless, the conversations that I have had with my direct interlocuters and that our officials have been having with their opposite numbers in the EU system have been progressing. As I have said, there are still a number of serious issues that need to be resolved, but we are working in good faith. The Bill exists for a reason and it is important that it is there.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman highlighting the fact that there is pretty much universal agreement now that the protocol needs to be changed, because that is what is driving an increased degree of community tension and disruption in Northern Ireland.

While I am on my feet, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman resuming his place.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

5. What diplomatic steps his Department is taking to strengthen relations with Commonwealth countries.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

We want to see a Commonwealth that delivers greater benefits to all member states across a range of policy priorities, including climate, human rights, health, education and security. We are building long-term partnerships on shared priorities, such as on trade, where we have secured free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand and are presently negotiating further FTAs with Canada and India.

[Alexander Stafford]

The Commonwealth is a family of nations that shares the UK’s great values, culture, history and language, and I passionately believe that it is a force for good in an ever more uncertain world, and acts as a bulwark against intolerance and authoritarianism. In the wake of our departure from the EU, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to deepen our engagement with Commonwealth on matters to do with the economy, foreign policy, culture and security, because they truly are our brothers?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

In an increasingly uncertain world, where sovereignty is challenged, the UK believes that the Commonwealth provides an important network of prospering free nations of brothers and sisters. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in June, we agreed funding of £270 million to support girls’ education across the Commonwealth and £15 million to help the Commonwealth countries defend themselves against cyber-attacks, and we are supporting small states through our international climate fund.

Persecution of Christians

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered persecution of Christians and freedom of religion or belief.

I am pleased to make a contribution in Westminster Hall any time, but I am especially pleased to speak on this matter today. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and I, with the support of other Members, approached the Backbench Business Committee to ask for a debate around this time, because we wanted it to tie in with Red Wednesday, which is next Wednesday. We were pleased to get the debate, and I am pleased to see right hon. and hon. Members here to contribute to it.

I start by declaring an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. In that capacity, I regularly voice, as other Members do in and outside the Chamber, the plight of Christians, those of other faiths and those of no faith who suffer on the grounds of their faith or belief. In my work with the APPG, I am regularly edified and encouraged by seeing all faiths and beliefs work together to advance FORB issues. Whether it is Christians advocating for humanists, humanists advocating for Muslims, or Muslims advocating for Sikhs, cross-belief support is a remarkable driver of change and solidarity in the face of persecution. I believe that human rights and religious belief walk hand in hand—they are married.

However, this debate is specifically about persecution of Christians. We should not shy away from the plight of persecuted Christians. I never will, and others in the Chamber never will. Against a backdrop of deteriorating conditions for many faiths and beliefs, we must not and will not dilute the grave challenges Christians face worldwide. In 2015, the largest religious group was those of a Christian faith, who numbered 2.3 billion, or 31% of the global population. In 2022, 360 million Christians experienced high levels of persecution and discrimination, an increase of some 20 million on 2021. In 2019, religious groups—especially Christians—were persecuted in 190 out of 198 countries.

We often look at stats and just take note of them, but the stats prove the issue. That is why this debate is so important. My remarks and those by others today will show that Christians face extreme levels of violent attacks in places such as Mozambique, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Mali, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, China, Russia, India and North Korea. I could name another 40; those are just 10 out of the more than 50 countries where Christians suffer for their faith today. The scale of oppression means that it is necessary to focus on one group in particular. That is why I gave the stats that I gave, and that is why the debate is so titled. By advocating freedom of religion for Christians, I can be safe in the knowledge that freedom of religion or belief for all will improve. I am a believer in that, Dame Maria; I believe that expressing myself in this debate on behalf of Christians will ensure that those of other beliefs and faiths have the very same rights.

This debate is especially pertinent because next Wednesday, 23 November, is Red Wednesday. That is a Christian initiative, spearheaded by Aid to the Church in Need, to remember our Christian brothers and sisters around the world who are persecuted for their faith. Buildings will be lit up red—the colour of martyrdom, which illustrates the blood of saints killed across the world. Next Wednesday, I hope that more and more people will be made aware of the persecution of Christians.

Yesterday, Aid to the Church in Need launched its latest report, entitled “Persecuted and Forgotten?” I wish I could have attended that event, but the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) brought me a copy of the report during the Westminster Hall debate on Ethiopia and Tigray. The report highlights cases of Christians persecuted due to their faith over the last three years, and it makes for harrowing reading. Some of the contributions to that debate referred to cases in the report, which are harrowing. I always find it incredibly hard to listen to contributions in the Chamber recounting personal stories of what happens to men, women and children because of their faith.

In 75% of the countries surveyed, oppression or persecution of Christians has increased in recent years. Similarly, the Open Doors “World Watch List” report finds year after year that the persecution of Christians is getting worse, not better—it never seems to get better. Last year, 5,898 Christians were murdered for their faith, and thousands more were maimed or injured, or had their places of worship damaged or destroyed. In the age of technological, social and medical advancements, we should ask ourselves why rights for Christians are not advancing. We are here today to make that point and illustrate it in an evidential way with stories.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has set out the statistics about how many Christians have been persecuted for their faith. Does he agree that, as a Christian country with an established Church, we need to do more to protect Christians in the UK and across the world, and use our global influence, especially in the Commonwealth, to help Christians and people of all faiths so that no one has to die in such horrific ways?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman is here to participate in the debate. He and I hold similar Christian views and faith.

My party and I first held a debate on the persecution of Christians back in, I think, 2012. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and the hon. Member for Congleton were both there, and there was consensus on both sides of the Chamber. That is when debates on Christianity as a persecuted faith started, and we have continued to hold them. I think they have had a key role.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. I spoke to him before the debate and I have great expectations of him, because I know he understands the issue. The hon. Member for Congleton and I were both saying yesterday that we have high expectations of him, and I am sure we will not be disappointed.

Complacency about the ever-worsening conditions for Christians around the world must stop now. The “Persecuted and Forgotten?” report found that the situation for Christians has worsened in all the countries in Africa that were reviewed: Mali, Sudan, Eritrea, Nigeria, Ethiopia and Mozambique. The atrocious conditions are evidenced by a sharp increase in genocidal violence. I use that word on purpose, because it illustrates exactly what is happening: it is genocidal violence from militant non-state actors, including jihadists. It is very clear to me that we need to address this issue.

Over the past two years, I and many other hon. Members have repeatedly highlighted how Christian persecution has only intensified since covid-19. According to the Institute of Development Studies:

“In a significant amount of the nations which have encountered outbreaks of the novel coronavirus, politicians and opinion leaders have openly condemned religious minority populations under the guise of epidemiological containment”.

In other words, it is saying that those of the Christian faith are the subject, in this case, of

“hateful messages on social media, public speeches and official policies.”

One would have hoped that such a diminished standard of treatment of religious minorities during covid-19 would have abated by now, but, disappointingly, that does not seem to have happened. The deteriorating conditions accelerated by the pandemic have not been fleeting or vaccinated away. Instead, the pandemic facilitated the creeping curtailment of Christians’ exercise of their faith. That is now the new normal, with no sign of improvement. That has to be addressed across the world.

There are so many countries I could touch on to exhibit the ever-worsening conditions for Christians around the world, but two in particular stand out to me. I have visited both. I want to speak about Nigeria, which I visited in May 2022, and Pakistan, which I visited in 2018. I hope to go back to Pakistan in February next year, if I am spared until that time. Why do I choose those two countries when so many others are also culprits? It is partly for the sheer scale of their abuses of Christians and other religious groups, but it is also because they are the two largest recipients of UK aid. I want to tie those stories together. I am all for UK aid—I am very supportive of it—but I think there has to be an undertaking from Nigeria and Pakistan to address the issues of Christian persecution, discrimination and abuse.

It is my hope that the UK can make the most difference to those countries, and it has a great responsibility to do so. When this country’s taxpayers are contributing to aid going to countries that allow the perpetrators of persecution to escape with immunity, we must ask ourselves whether we are confident that we are not complicit in any abuses taking place. We need to use the aid that we give to those and other countries as an instrument to change what is happening.

To that end, this Government must continue to seek answers about where their aid is going, who it is reaching, and whether religious groups in need are benefiting from that assistance. I ask the question of others on many occasions. Like others, I hear the stories of religious groups not getting the assistance they should when it comes to humanitarian aid and direct UK aid to those countries. Without significant transparency about the aid that is distributed, we cannot be sure that it is not simply fuelling the oppression of Christians. That is a big statement to make, but it is how we feel. Others will illustrate that clearly.

Gender-specific religious-based persecution is a serious problem in Pakistan, with some reports listing it as one of the worst offenders worldwide. When we were in Pakistan back in 2018, we had discussions with the high commissioner about the blasphemy law, which I will comment on later. We chose to adopt a certain attitude on that visit to Pakistan, because we thought that if we condemned the blasphemy law outright, we probably would not get the opportunity to speak to the judges we needed to speak to. Instead, we illustrated to them evidentially that—and it is true—accusations of blasphemy are often malicious, vindictive and untrue. That is what happened in the case of Asia Bibi. Two of the three judges we met agreed; they were of the opinion that it was malicious, vindictive and dishonest, and they said that Asia Bibi would be released. There was an appeal and she was released; she now lives in Canada with her family. But there are other Asia Bibis in Pakistan, and it is very clear from ongoing cases that blasphemy laws are being used in a vindictive fashion.

Aid to the Church in Need’s “Hear Her Cries” report recorded that in the Sindh province in 2018 there were more than 1,000 cases of Christian or Hindu women suffering forced conversion—almost three a day. More often than not, they are just young girls. Women also suffer so-called forced marriage, which is not marriage at all—not as you, Dame Maria, and I would see marriage. It is the rape of non-Muslim women, who are often under age, too.

One high-profile case is that of Maira Shahbaz. I am pretty sure that the right hon. Member for Gainsborough will speak about this, too. In 2020, aged just 14, she was abducted, raped, and forced to marry her abductor and convert. Her birth certificate showed that she was under age, but Lahore High Court judged her to be legally wed, even though the law of the land said that that was impossible. Since Maira escaped from her captor, she has been forced to stay in hiding. Despite repeated requests that the Home Office in this country grant her asylum, she is still waiting. I know that that is not the responsibility of this Minister, but I make a plea, as others will, for Maira Shahbaz to have her asylum request processed so that she can settle in this country, with the freedom that she deserves to have. Hers is a worthy asylum case and a very clear one, given the violence and the loss of freedom that she has suffered.

Sadly, gender-specific persecution is not unique to Pakistan. According to gender-specific research released last year, there was a 31% increase in violence, be that sexual, physical or psychological, against Christian women and girls compared with the previous year. The latter two forms of violence saw the biggest increase in incidents. According to Open Doors:

“Sexual violence can be overt, such as Christian women being abducted by Boko Haram and used as sex slaves, or it can be covert, under the guise of forced marriage, for example. Given the honour culture of many societies, sexual violence is often used to intentionally shame and stigmatise victims as well as their families and communities.”

The impact on all the families is quite large and quite significant.

Moreover, in honour/shame cultures, such as those found in India, many of the methods used to persecute Christian women and girls result in stigma—indeed, that is often a key reason behind the attacks. For example, rape victims are often viewed by society as sexually impure, making them vulnerable to rejection and limiting their prospects. This only serves to perpetuate a cycle of violence against Christians, making it increasingly taboo to be a follower of Christ in this world, which is something that I and many in this Chamber adhere to.

In Pakistan, gender-specific persecution is not the only challenge that Christians face. The ever present threat of allegations under blasphemy law and subsequent imprisonment or death has been used as a weapon against the Christians in Pakistan. Pakistan’s infamous blasphemy laws continue to be leveraged to accuse Christians and other non-Muslims of insulting the Prophet Mohammed or the Koran. Those false accusations are slurs, but they are also malicious, vindictive and dishonest, and they are often made in order to target Christians after a non-related dispute. Many of the cases that I have been aware of have had something to do with land disputes, property disputes, or fallouts. Even a false accusation can lead to mob violence. Once again, such allegations can lead to Christians living in hiding for years afterwards—as Maira Shahbaz is—with little hope of escape, and closed avenues of asylum in the UK. Those avenues of asylum should be open and available to those who have been persecuted and discriminated against because of their faith.

I visited Nigeria in May, and I am very sad to say that the situation in Nigeria has not changed at all. We had hoped that it would. We had some indications from Government officials that things were advancing. But the reality is very different. In Nigeria, abductions, particularly of women and girls, are rife. Many of us will know—indeed, we will all know—of the kidnapping of the Chibok schoolgirls in 2014. It made headlines when 276 mostly Christian girls were abducted by Boko Haram from their school. What has not made the headlines is the reality of that. Eight years later, more than 100 of those girls are still missing. How hard that must be on their mums, dads, brothers, sisters and all the family members who want to know what has happened to their sisters and daughters.

Regrettably, there are many cases of similar, albeit smaller-scale, abductions, with girls still missing after years. We think of the wee lady Leah Sharibu as well. She has been missing for four years. We had hoped that something might come out of our visit in May in relation to Leah Sharibu, but it has not been forthcoming as of this moment. As long as these girls remain missing, we must ask our Government—my Government—what they are doing to tackle impunity in Nigeria, and how they can be sure that the aid given to Nigeria does not fall into the wrong hands.

I and others have great concerns that Nigeria is the cockpit of Africa and that if it goes wrong in Nigeria, with its massive population, it can go very wrong for the rest of Africa. I know that is something the Minister takes particular interest in, and I am sure that he will give us an update in his response.

In May, earlier this year, I visited Nigeria along with other members of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief. A main takeaway was that young people were ripe for radicalisation, facilitated largely by Government corruption and a culture of impunity. If more is not done to stem the spread of jihad, we will, without a doubt, witness genocide in Nigeria.

Earlier, I mentioned that some 5,898 Christians were killed last year, for simply believing that Jesus is their Lord. I find that almost incomprehensible. Of those, 4,650 were in Nigeria. That gives us an idea of the scale of the difficulties in Nigeria; that is why my focus has been on Pakistan and Nigeria. Yet again, that figure means that more Christians were murdered in Nigeria for following Jesus than in the rest of the world combined. That is a big stat to take in.

Yesterday, Bishop Jude, from Ondo State in Nigeria, visited Parliament. He is the bishop in the diocese where earlier this year, on Pentecost Sunday—a mere seven days after we visited the area—Catholics were massacred during a church service at St Francis church. Bishop Jude described how young children were shot through the head by Islamists. The amount of pain and suffering that such attacks inflict upon Nigeria’s population is unimaginable, and yet their faith still remains. It is an incredible test of faith, but it also tells of the faith they have.

What of the international community’s response? In November 2021, the US removed Nigeria from its list of countries of particular concern, and it has still yet to redesignate it as such. I ask that the Minister has discussions with the United States about reinstating Nigeria on that list, where it should be. The US of all countries should be doing that. The reasons for removing the designation remain somewhat unclear, especially in the light of such severe violations of freedom of religion or belief.

Although this Government condemned the attack, they also expressed the view in response to a written question on the matter that:

“The root causes of violence are complex, and in the case of intercommunal violence, frequently relate to competition over resources, historical grievances and criminality.”

I do not deny for a second that this is a complex issue or that there is a backdrop of compounding difficulties to the insecurity in Nigeria, but we must stop kidding ourselves that competition over resources, commonly attributed to climate change, is a greater cause of such violence and killings than pure unabated, violent hatred of Christians. The Islamic extremists in Nigeria could have massacred people in the street or in a Government building, but they did not. Instead, they shot, killed and maimed Christians, who were specifically targeted. The distinctly religious-based nature of the conflict should not be dismissed. Scarce resources do not shoot worshippers through the head; extremists do.

The rise of extremism is not unique to Nigeria. According to the latest report from Aid to the Church in Need, in June 2021, fighters belonging to Islamic State in the Greater Sahara executed five Christian civilians seized at a roadblock between Gao, Mali and Niamey, Niger. In Mozambique, al-Shabaab stepped up its terror campaign, killing Christians, attacking Christian villages and burning down churches. The group is affiliated to Daesh, which claimed responsibility for the March 2021 attack on Palma in north-east Mozambique. All the while, we as the west seem to do very little in response.

I know the Government are committed to freedom of religion and belief, but we need to perhaps take a more focused approach in relation to aid on where the difficulties are and what we can do to help. What can we do to stem the flow of violence, persecution, oppression and even genocide against Christians? I have some suggestions for the Minister, for His Majesty’s Government—for my Government. First, the FCDO must continue to affirm FORB issues as a priority concern within its human rights agenda, maintain its focus on gender and sexual violence in conflict and its interplay with FORB issues. In short, a mainstreaming of FORB in the FCDO’s approach to other nations would be welcome.

In connection with that, asylum seekers who are fleeing due to being persecuted for their religion or belief must be prioritised, and that is critically important. If that is done, the delayed acceptance of religious minorities from Afghanistan into the resettlement scheme would never be repeated. There are some people in a hotel in North Down who have been there since they were repatriated from Afghanistan. I welcome the scheme—I really do—but they are still there. There needs to be a system where people can get out. They want to work, they want to be settled and have things getting back to some normality as much as possible. Similarly, utmost efforts should be made to enable religious minorities to make asylum applications. Often they face more barriers than others in this process.

The work of the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, currently the hon. Member for Congleton, must be adequately resourced and fully integrated into the FCDO’s work. That is another ask through this debate. I know that she will not ask for it, but I will ask for it for her, because I think it is the right thing to do. Amplifying the concerns of Christians worldwide is all well and good, but we need to be sure that the FCDO is listening and taking action in response. If that work was incorporated within the FCDO, that would be a massive positive step.

I also suggest, as developed in a debate only a few weeks ago, that His Majesty’s Government do more to encourage the abolishment of the death penalty or life sentences for the charges of blasphemy. That is one small change that could make a tangible difference for so many Christians in multiple countries. Encouraging states to ensure the rule of law and not tyranny by sharia courts is fundamental to that aim. It is wholly unacceptable for a state to constitutionally have no state religion and yet have sharia law prevail among its court system, as it does in Nigeria and in other countries.

Finally, returning to Pakistan and Nigeria, I suggest that foreign and development aid be tied to improving FORB conditions. I have said it before in other debates, but saying that again does not lessen the request. It is a different Minister now, and I am always keen to seek the support and the response of the Minister in post. That proposal would not impact on emergency humanitarian aid. We are not saying that aid should not happen; we are saying it needs to be done to improve FORB conditions across the world. It would not impact on the millions of pounds spent by this Government on general development either. Until our Government can be absolutely certain that the recipients of aid are doing all they can to end the persecution, be it state or non-state actors, we should not be complacent about taxpayers’ money going to these countries.

I want to end on a positive note—this is my last word for the moment. In the Gospel of Matthew, it says:

“Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

If we cannot deliver justice for the oppressed in this life, may we be sure in the knowledge that justice will be theirs in the second? I believe we have a duty, as representatives in this House and as Christians ourselves, to speak up for our brothers and sisters across the world. We ask our Government and Minister—my Government and Minister—to respond in a positive fashion.

Algeria: 60th Anniversary of Diplomatic Relations

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Algeria, I feel privileged to have the honour of sponsoring this debate to mark the 60th anniversary of the establishment of ties between the United Kingdom and the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria. The past 60 years since Algeria’s independence have been marked by close and cordial ties between our two countries, which, although very different on the surface, are in fact bound together by common history and shared objectives. As chair of the all-party group, I have engaged with Algerian businesses, British companies in Algeria, trade groups, the British ambassador in Algeria and, frequently, the two Algerian ambassadors in London. As a result, I have built close ties with the country, although—alas—I have not yet visited.

Throughout my time working on Algeria, I have chosen to characterise Anglo-Algerian relations as being composed of four main pillars of mutual co-operation and interest: energy, trade, security and culture, which encompasses history, tourism and heritage. Algeria aligns with a number of diverse issues that are of great relevance to me. Hon. Members will be aware that energy, business and history have long been my interests, alongside promoting British expertise in those areas globally. The UK’s position as a finance hub, a tech hub, a home to world-class universities and a leader in many economic sectors puts us in a unique position to share our technologies and expertise with Algeria and help it to unlock its huge potential. Our recent presidency of COP26 and our green-tech capabilities will enable us to help Algeria to pursue its energy transformation.

Why is now the perfect time for a debate on British-Algerian relations? As the title of the debate indicates, 60 years of warm diplomatic ties are worth celebrating, but there is more to it than that.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for calling this important debate. Last month, I had the pleasant privilege of visiting Algeria in my role as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief and chair of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance—the first such visit of the alliance. I was genuinely pleased at the welcome that I received at meetings in the Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Ministry of Interior, both of which confirmed that they were willing to continue such dialogue, to which I look forward. Does he agree that it is important to continue such conversations wherever opportunities are made available?

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I am glad that she had such a successful and fruitful visit to Algeria. I hope that one day in the not-too-distant future, I, too, will visit that beautiful country. I completely agree that now more than ever, there is a huge appetite on both sides for a deeper and closer relationship, catalysed by Britain’s post-Brexit freedom to trade with whomever we wish, and by Algeria’s concerted effort to put its colonial legacy in the past once and for all and to control its own destiny and relevance to the UK.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward the debate. Although it is important to provide high levels of support to British nationals in Algeria and to maintain good relations with the Algerian Government, there are—I say this respectfully—ongoing concerns about the treatment of minority religions in Algeria, one of which is Christianity, as I know he understands well. Christians are vulnerable to prosecution for blasphemy and there has been a systematic closing of 13 Protestant churches. Does he therefore agree that to maintain our diplomatic relations, the Algerian Government need to make religious persecution a priority and allow people to practise their faith in freedom and peace? Let us welcome the good things, but do more.

[Alexander Stafford]

It is an honour to be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman. This is my seventh or eighth Adjournment debate and he has never intervened in one, so it is a pleasure to be intervened on today. On his point about Christianity and the freedom of religion, it is important that everyone can practise their religion wherever and whenever they choose. In fact, I had a conversation with the previous Algerian ambassador to London about that very matter not long ago. I will touch on Christianity later in my speech.

It is important to recognise that we cannot understand Algeria or become its close partner without looking at its history and how it was formed as a country. Many Britons may be aware of Algeria only as a north African Arab nation with a recent French influence. That is undoubtedly true, but it boasts a heritage dating back thousands of years. In antiquity, it was the home of the famed Numidians, who were succeeded by the great Phoenicians, who founded nearby Carthage, as we all know. After a slow decline marked by the Punic wars among other things, Algeria fell under the control of the Romans after they defeated the Numidian king, Jugurtha.

In my potted history of the great country of Algeria, I will emphasise its great Roman heritage, which formed Algeria as the country that it is today. In 46 BC, Julius Caesar annexed Algeria to the Roman empire and the regional capital was chosen to be Cherchell. Emperor Trajan’s strategy of reinforcing Rome’s Algerian territories resulted in the great fortress at Lambaesis and the development of towns such as Timgad and Djémila. Timgad is upheld as a marvel of Roman town planning, with a beautifully preserved UNESCO world heritage site often described as Africa’s Pompeii. The city was a home for retired soldiers, with the inscription in the forum reading “Lavare, Venari, Ludere”, translated as “Hunting, bathing and playing”, which surely sums up the good life for everyone, especially those who had given service to the empire.

As a result of Roman development, Algeria was regarded as a particularly productive part of the empire, becoming a main provider of agricultural surpluses to other distant territories. Later, Emperor Caracalla represented why the Roman model was so successful: he was of Punic and Arab ancestry, with few actual ties to Rome, yet he was thoroughly Roman in citizenship, attitude and way of life.

At this juncture, Christianity enters the picture. The Christian faith has a long history in Algeria, and was present there long before Islam. By the 4th century, many Algerian Christians followed Donatism, a local church steeped in the ethnic and social values of the region and more popular in the inland, poorer towns. It was so named after its leader, the local Berber bishop, Donatus. St Augustine, the Berber Bishop of Hippo Regius, wrote a treatise against the Donatists. St Augustine’s legacy can still be seen today at Annaba.

Augustine’s importance as a Church father cannot be underestimated, given his huge impact on foundational Christian doctrine and theology, particularly in his seminal text “The City of God”, a philosophical treatise vindicating Christianity in the face of the sacking of Rome by the pagan Visigoths. It is widely regarded as a masterpiece of western culture, yet it is absolutely fascinating to me that Augustine is clearly a son of Algeria. So Algeria, even back in Roman times, helped shape the face of western Europe.

Obviously, St Augustine is not the only famous Roman name to be associated with Algeria. Constantine the Great gave his name to the city of Constantine, which exists today under the same name as Algeria’s third biggest city. It is one of the biggest cities in the world and known as the city of hanging bridges. Emperor Constantine reportedly said that it was the only place in the world where man is higher than an eagle.

Other Members will know that my historical muse is Justinian the Great, and I always find that in debates in Parliament there can never be enough Justinian. Justinian’s story itself is inextricably linked with Algeria, because in 533 AD Justinian sought to restore Roman control over all its territories and sent the general Belisarius from Constantinople to north Africa with 16,000 men. Within a year, the victorious Belisarius had destroyed the Vandal kingdom and restored Roman rule, using this as a launchpad to reconquer Italy and much of the western Roman empire. Justinian’s reconquest of the Roman west is clearly one of the greatest achievements of any empire, and this campaign was conducted by one of the most brilliant generals in history. It is incredible, once again, that Algeria was central to this seminal episode in history, and all that began in north Africa.

Algeria has had a diverse and varied list of rulers, however. The Arabs arrived in the mid-7th century, bringing Islam and Arabic to Algeria. The Arabs were without a doubt the most impactful of all of Algeria’s invaders, very much forming the character of the country as it is today. This Islamic cultural presence was continued by the Ottomans, who ruled Algeria from 1516 to the French arrival in 1830.

The 130-year period of French rule had a profound influence on Algeria, which can still be seen today in language, customs and ties. The traumatic events of Algeria’s war of independence live long, even now, in the memory of Algerians, and 1 million pieds-noirs fled to France amid the turmoil and horrors perpetrated by various groups on all sides, such as the OAS. The Évian accords in 1962 granted Algeria its independence, but meant that the French Republic shrunk greatly in area, population and importance.

Algeria then, unfortunately, fell victim to a repeat of the violence and brutality of the war of independence in the Algerian civil war of 1991 to 2002, in which the Algerian Government fought Islamist rebel groups. A hard-won victory by the Algerian Government has left ongoing insurgency fears in the country and an interventionist state security apparatus.

However, Algeria is looking to fashion modern, equal relationships that will be both mutually beneficial and respectful. Accordingly, the United Kingdom has only ever had positive relations with Algeria. Britain has been nothing but friendly to Algeria throughout history, building links based on friendship and equality, particularly in the past 60 years of Algerian independence. There is ample evidence of Anglo-Algerian harmony down the years. Official relations between Algeria and the United Kingdom date back to John Tipton’s appointment as first British consul in Algiers in 1580.

The 1682 treaty of peace and trade heralded a prosperous relationship built on commerce, and the British enjoyed privileged treatment in Algiers compared with other foreigners. After the French invasion of Algeria, the British consul served as intermediary in negotiations between the French and the Ottoman Algerian ruler, and in 1833 this very Parliament here in Westminster rejected the French claim to occupy Algeria—it was always on Algeria’s side. A number of British Army officers expressed admiration for Algerian resistance to French occupation, and Colonel James Scott even joined Algerian hero Emir Abdelkader. British travellers from the time published accounts praising Algeria as a good place to settle due to its climate and people. They were joined by visits from high-ranking British dignitaries, including King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra, who made a private visit to Algiers in 1905.

After Algeria’s independence in 1962, relations between Algeria and the United Kingdom became deeper and stronger. The UK was Algeria’s first client to import liquefied natural gas in 1964, and British companies were crucial in supplying equipment, machinery, and technological expertise for Algeria’s industrial expansion. Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II visited Algeria in October 1980 on a historic visit, where she was received by the President and visited the Roman ruins at Tipaza. Likewise, in 2006 President Bouteflika made the first visit by an Algerian head of state to the UK since independence. In 2013, David Cameron was the first, although I hope not the last, British Prime Minister to visit Algeria.

Algeria and the United Kingdom share not only a deep history but impressive cultural ties. For example, the UK has been the second most popular destination, after France, for Algerian students wishing to go to university, and efforts are being made to expand that pathway father. British universities have also had successful study abroad exchange programmes with Algerian universities. Algeria has provided some of the world's best footballers to play in the English league, namely Riyad Mahrez and Saïd Benrahma. The books “The Praetorians” and “The Centurions” by Jean Lartéguy, which focus on Algeria, have proved hugely popular in translation in the Anglophone world. The film, “The Battle of Algiers” was critically acclaimed and ranked as one of the best films of all time, including in Britain. That shows the cultural impact Algeria is having. Even more excitingly, the ambassador has told me that preparations are well under way for an Anglo-Algerian film focusing on the life of Algerian hero, Emir Abdelkader, which I hope will introduce that most important historical figure to an Anglophone audience.

Against that encouraging backdrop, what is the future of British-Algerian relations? Currently, a consultation mechanism exists in the UK-Algeria joint committee on bilateral relations, which was established in 2006 to provide an appropriate framework for discussing political, economic, educational and cultural relations, and international issues of common interest. Furthermore, a strategic partnership in the area of security was launched in 2013.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

Britain and Algeria go back a very long time and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. The United Nations recognises the Polisario Front as the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people, and Algeria has a long history of supporting the Sahrawi people and the Polisario Front. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in placing on record our recognition of the work of Algeria when it comes to the issue of the Western Sahara and the Polisario Front?

[Alexander Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have a great link with Algeria. Obviously it is not up to Britain to decide who Algeria has diplomatic relations with, or not, but it is clear that in any process we must have lots of dialogue and talk to all sides.

Let me return to the four pillars of co-operation that I referred to at the beginning of my speech. Energy is currently by far and away the greatest area of British-Algerian co-operation. Several British companies are investing in Algeria in the energy field, and are considered among the most important foreign investors, including BP. Oil and gas are a critical part of Britain’s transition to net zero, and fossil fuel companies have a huge role to play in research and innovation for renewables. In the wake of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, it is more important than ever that we have a reliable supplier of energy and, with my renewables background, I see a mutual opportunity for Britain and Algeria in the green energy space.

Algeria will need to pivot towards renewables over the coming decades. Promising steps have already been taken in harnessing the solar power potential of the vast Sahara desert. I believe that there is a central role for the export of British skills, technology and expertise in renewable energy to Algeria, particularly in solar panels, wind turbines and hydrogen. We must seize that opportunity for the benefit of UK plc.

Simultaneously, Algeria will reap the rewards of its natural geographic advantage—it is the biggest country in Africa, with lots of space and sun—to ensure that its energy industry and wider economy is just as prosperous with renewables as it is with fossil fuels. In the build-up to COP26 in Glasgow, I was pleased to see the now Foreign Secretary visit Algiers in March 2020 and sign a declaration of intent of co-operation in the field of environmental protection, sustainable development and renewable energies.

[Jim Shannon]

There was a story in the press over the weekend about green energy in relation to Morocco, with the possibility of some of it being exported to the United Kingdom using a channel under the sea. Does the hon. Gentleman know about that? Is there a possibility of Algeria and Morocco doing a deal with the United Kingdom?

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank the hon. Member for intervening again in my debate; it is always a privilege to hear from him. That sounds like an interesting idea. As I said, in our post-Brexit world, we need to explore all options, especially when it comes to the decarbonisation of our energy fields.

Britain and British energy companies must work with Algeria to implement the Algerian renewable energy strategy, an investment of US $100 billion by 2030 that will result in the country producing a third of all its domestic energy from renewable sources. There is definitely room for more to be done beyond energy, however, with rich opportunities to deepen ties in agriculture, infrastructure, pharmaceutical, mining and rare earths, cyber and digital. The aforementioned 2020 declaration of intent of co-operation established an investment taskforce to allow businesses to continue operating freely after the end of the UK’s transition period with the EU, and committed to co-operating across a range of areas including political, economic, security and cultural relations.

It is hugely important that we have focused on education, too. That has led to an agreement for the first British school to open in Algeria and for the promotion of the English language. Likewise, I hope that many more high-skilled and talented Algerian students will come to study in British universities.

Security co-operation is critical in an ever more dangerous world, There are three elements to the partnership. The first is, of course, counter-terrorism, with Britain and Algeria continuing to fight Islamic terror wherever it may spring up. The second element is regional stability as Algeria acts as a vital bulwark against chaos in neighbouring Libya and across the Maghreb as well as in the Sahel to the south and the wider middle east. Similarly, a peaceful resolution to the deadlock in the Western Sahara requires Algeria’s leadership and collegiality. The third element is in stemming the flow of illegal migration and human trafficking to Europe’s shores. With small boats crossing the channel on a daily basis, Algeria has an important role to play in disrupting trafficking networks in north Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and the middle east.

Finally, and as I have spoken about at great length, there is great scope for increasing exchange in tourism, culture, history and heritage issues. Algeria boasts some of the richest history and the most impressive sights. I would like to see lots of Britons visiting Algeria in the manner that they happily and regularly visit neighbouring countries such as Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia, especially for the ancient sites.

As I draw to a close, I reiterate that I firmly believe that the region is a vital new frontier for Britain as we leave the EU and look to build stronger, exciting new trade partnerships around the world. Algeria is the largest country in Africa by area, and it is highly developed, with a young, dynamic, educated populace. It stands at the gateway to Africa: a continent launching the Africa free trade zone and upgrading a road from Algiers to Lagos. Algeria is enjoying substantial GDP growth and provides free healthcare and education to its citizens, including free higher education.

Algeria is diversifying its economy by prioritising entrepreneurship, start-ups and renewable energy. I particularly welcome the new incentives being introduced and the new frameworks being set up by the Algerian Government to encourage foreign investment. Algeria is also looking for modern, equal relationships and wishes to build alliances in Europe to navigate a way forward through a volatile petrochemicals market. It also desires to lift opportunities for the Algerian people to new heights.

Of course, there are challenges, just as there are in any relationship, but on the 60th anniversary of the establishment of ties between the United Kingdom and Algeria, the future has never looked brighter for our relationship on all fronts, and the hunger for a deeper and closer partnership from both sides is impossible to ignore. Thus, I ask the Minister to bear Algeria in mind as the United Kingdom uses its new, exciting status as a sovereign trading nation, because I am certain that a good friend and ally is on our doorstep, waiting to welcome a successful British-Algerian future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks. The international community is scaling up in Somalia and in Ethiopia. The World Bank and the African Development Bank have announced more than $35 billion of funding for food security across the region.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of the impact of the British national overseas visa scheme on diplomatic relations with China.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

We warmly welcome all those who have taken up the BNO visa route. This route is about our relationship with Hong Kong and its people. The BNO visa scheme was introduced in response to China’s breaches of the Sino-British joint declaration, including its imposition of the national security law, which has been used to undermine rights and freedoms in Hong Kong.

[Alexander Stafford]

I deeply commend the Government on implementing the impressive, tailor-made British national overseas visa and standing up for the Hongkongers in the face of growing repression from Beijing. British nationals overseas are Britons, and it is important that we defend them at home and abroad. In the light of the recent assault on a Hongkonger inside the Chinese consulate in Manchester and the increasing harassment of Hongkongers by the Chinese state all over the world, will my right hon. Friend commit to protecting the British Hongkongers?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

We are steadfast in our support of the Hong Kong BNO community. Those who choose to live their lives in the UK should enjoy the same freedoms that are afforded to any nationality. As British nationals, BNO passport holders are entitled to consulate assistance from our diplomatic posts overseas.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, which is why this year alone we are committing £286 million of humanitarian aid that is being disbursed through international organisations. That is all the more needed because of the deprivations of the Taliban regime.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

T6. Images of thousands of peaceful protestors in Iran, young and old, male and female, of all religions and beliefs, are heartwarming for those who choose democracy and civil liberties and despise authoritarianism. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the Iranian regime will bow to the demands of liberty and freedom of the great Persian people?

[David Rutley]

The death of Mahsa Amini was a shocking reminder of the repression faced by women in Iran. The continuing protests send a clear message that the Iranian people are not satisfied with the path their Government have taken. We have given a robust response; we have summoned the Iranian head of mission to the UK to express our concerns and we have designated new sanctions. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

Freedom of Religion or Belief: International Conference

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

There is clearly a great deal of interest among parliamentarians about when the independent review—the Truro report—will be published. Will my hon. Friend, who is the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, confirm that publication is at hand? Will she also make it clear that as the Truro review is a manifesto commitment, although there is clearly more work to do on it, there is no question whatever of work on specific recommendations ceasing just because the review is taking place?

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Work is indeed in hand, and I concur with his view that work on that manifesto commitment and on the recommendations of the Truro review must continue. It is far from complete.

At the ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief, we will welcome hundreds of delegates from over 60 countries, around half of which will be represented by Government Ministers. We will also welcome faith and belief leaders and representatives, civil society activists, academics and—importantly—FORB abuse survivors with their powerful accounts to tell. On 5 and 6 July, after a keynote speech from the Foreign Secretary, we will hold sessions on promoting FORB in the face of global challenges; early warning, and atrocity prevention; FORB and education; promoting FORB in the digital world; engaging the next generation; the multiple vulnerabilities of women and girls; FORB and the media; inspiring parliamentarians; and much more.

Those of us who have planned this conference could not have worked harder to ensure there is a diversity of participants from all faiths and none and from across the world. As the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, I was involved in setting up a civil society advisory group representing many faith and belief backgrounds to help with the planning of the conference. We cannot afford for that conference to be merely a talking shop; it has to lead to increased global action and help drive forward international efforts to protect and promote FORB for everyone, everywhere.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

We are absolutely not glossing over our concerns about rights when it comes to, for example, space for political opposition, civil rights and media freedom. Indeed, I met the permanent secretary of the Rwandan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation in London earlier this year and made those points to her. However, to break the people trafficking model that is causing lives to be put at risk in our channel, things need to be done; doing nothing is not an option. That is why the Government of Rwanda have willingly entered into this partnership; they too want to stop lives being put at risk.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to protect women and girls from the use of rape and sexual violence in conflict.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)]

The use of rape and sexual violence in conflict is a war crime. The UK is determined to tackle this scourge, which devastates lives. That is why we are campaigning for it to be a red line, on a par with the use of chemical weapons.

[Alexander Stafford]

The reports of appalling, widespread sexual violence being used by Russian soldiers in Ukraine are deeply disturbing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Murad code is a vital step to ensuring justice for survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, and that we must send a strong message to Russia and to Putin that rape as a weapon of war is evil and we must stamp it out?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is evil, and we have seen horrific sights in towns such as Bucha, where rape and sexual violence were used to terrorise women and children. The UK is leading the charge on the need to collect evidence of those crimes, and under our presidency of the United Nations Security Council we have launched the Murad code, which sets global standards for effective evidence-gathering on sexual violence.

Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I completely disagree with the hon. Lady. In fact, I know that black, Asian and other ethnic minority communities across the country will be very pleased with the plan because I have gone out and spoken to them. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who spoke from the Labour Front Bench: I know that there is nothing that we could say from the Conservative Benches that would please Labour Members, because they believe that they own this topic. They are not in government; we are. The fact is that we have been carrying out actions over the past 12 years. We even had one of the shadow Front Benchers, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), carry out a review.

We have taken actions on those reviews, yet even after we carry out those actions Labour Members stand up and deny that anything is happening. The truth is that they are not interested in an action plan. They want a debate about institutional racism. I will not spend time as a Government Minister having an academic argument and debating semantics and language. We will deliver the actions in this plan, and I am very proud to be the Minister responsible.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for setting out the Government’s comprehensive plan to tackle negative disparities wherever they exist, and especially on the model history curriculum, which will be very important. I am proud of our heritage. Of course there is good and bad, but we are proud of where we come from and what way we are going. Will she confirm that this Government remain fully committed to a fairer Britain for all and to taking necessary actions for everyone who is left behind by society, regardless of gender, age, sexuality or ethnic background? We are all one country and one great nation.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Yes, and my hon. Friend will find that that is what the model history curriculum will deliver.

I forgot to mention to the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) when she talked about black history that black is a category that cuts across so many significant ethnic groups that there is no way that one history module could go into any depth. We need a model history curriculum that explains the story of Britain and all our places within it. We cannot have segregated history curriculums for people of different skin colour. I am completely against that and I do not support it.

Beijing Winter Olympics and Chinese Government Sanctions

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for bringing this important debate to the House.

The Olympic games uses sport to bring nations together, guided by the core values of excellence, friendship and respect. The games and its core principles hold a special place in the heart of Rother Valley, as Lesley Ward, a resident of Brampton-en-le-Morthen, represented Great Britain on our diving team at the Olympic games in 1992, 1996 and 2000. Needless to say, everyone in Rother Valley is immensely proud of her. The Olympic charter’s noble values are cherished in Rother Valley and across the world, which makes the International Olympic Committee’s decision to award the games to Beijing incredibly odd indeed.

Outrage and horror in this place and around the world have rightly followed the reports of mass atrocity crimes in Xinjiang. The UK Government and this Parliament cannot stand by and watch. The Foreign Secretary himself said of the Chinese Communist party’s actions in Xinjiang:

“Internment camps, arbitrary detention, political re-education, forced labour, torture and forced sterilisation—all on an industrial scale. It is truly horrific...We have a moral duty to respond.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 160.]

In April, this House voted to declare that China’s actions amount to genocide and crimes against humanity, so why are we in this situation, even debating the Olympic games next year?

The People’s Republic of China is a cause for concern beyond the Xinjiang crisis, too. Commercially, companies fear upsetting the Chinese government and Chinese consumers, so they will often bend to Chinese demands. It is simply not right that British and American companies, based in the UK and the US, accept the diktat of a foreign dictatorship.

The misuse of economic soft power is directed against sovereign states, too. Australia has had tariffs imposed because of its refusal to toe the line. African nations are the victims of coercive economic neo-colonisation. The belt and road initiative is a Trojan horse for debt-trap diplomacy. The distribution of the Chinese covid-19 vaccines is being used as diplomatic leverage, and the remaining allies of the Republic of China—Taiwan—are being financially induced to switch democratic recognition to the PRC.

Elsewhere in business, the Chinese run roughshod over rules of intellectual property, copying western technology and innovation. They manipulate the renminbi and provide unfettered state aid to their industries and companies to put western businesses at a disadvantage. The recent Chinese Government crackdown on Didi, Alibaba and Tencent demonstrates their intention to control all aspects of Chinese life, threatening our citizens’ data security and the competitiveness of western companies.

It is clear that, on covid-19, the Chinese are not being fully open and co-operative with the international community. All this is without mentioning the PRC’s disregard for the rules-based international order in its treatment of Tibet; its aggression on the Indian border; its persecution of Chinese Christians, Falun Gong and other minorities; its militarisation of the South China sea; its threats towards the Republic of China; its banning of pro-democracy candidates running in elections in Macau; and, of course, its outrageous and illegal national security law in Hong Kong, trampling on the rights of millions of British nationals. In the UK, we face constant threats to our national security from cyber-attacks, espionage, Chinese ownership of vital infrastructure and key companies, as well as infiltration of our universities and institutions. In the light of all this, why is the global community acquiescing in the 2022 winter Olympic games being hosted in Peking? And why are the UK Government even considering sending British representatives to attend the games?

The PRC uses international events such as the winter games to cultivate its image and bolster its legitimacy, both at home and abroad. We must not hand China a propaganda victory. Unless the PRC ends its oppression in Xinjiang and elsewhere and lifts sanctions on British companies and individuals, we must consider action in relation to the games. A possible option is one where Great Britain would still participate in Beiping and we would still cheer the team on to glory, but no state officials would attend. Our stance would send a message to both Peking and the wider international community that the UK unequivocally stands against the horrendous crimes occurring in Xinjiang and elsewhere and would ensure that Beijing realises that it cannot commit these crimes with impunity.

As a result of the PRC’s conduct towards the United Kingdom, its own people and the international community, we cannot and must not provide a veneer of diplomatic respectability to the Chinese regime. I call on the International Olympic Committee to look at moving the 2022 winter games from the PRC and I urge the UK Government to consider not sending official representation if the games do go ahead in Beijing. I shall always celebrate and support the Great Britain Olympic team, but we must not celebrate or support the Communist party of China, which is currently oppressing people both in China and abroad. We must look at all and any options to stop this awful regime.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Nusrat Ghani—just take it to 4.30 pm.

Official Development Assistance and the British Council

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I rise to address the priorities of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office over the coming year. However, in this debate, we must all be cognisant of the fact that the unparalleled support provided by the Government during the coronavirus pandemic has come at an immense cost to the taxpayer. We have set a record for peacetime borrowing—a grim statistic. That high rate of borrowing means that, unfortunately, savings have to be made somewhere.

Let me make this clear: as the Member of Parliament for Rother Valley, I do not want any budget cuts to affect my constituents. I have been vocal about the need to level up left-behind and disadvantaged communities such as my towns of Dinnington, Maltby, Thurcroft, Swallownest and all the rest. My constituents have been ignored for far too long over the decades, but things are now starting to change for the better because of the election of this Conservative Government.

That is why the official development assistance budget must be reduced. We should not be sending vast sums of borrowed money abroad to foreign powers at a time when we can least afford it. I am firmly of the view that we must always look after our own first and foremost. My constituents have endured real hardship during the pandemic, not to mention that Rother Valley already had some of the deepest pockets of deprivation in the country. That is where our aid money should be going during this national emergency.

We are forced to cut aid because of the prevailing circumstances caused by the covid pandemic. Nevertheless, the UK remains a world leader in international aid, delivering more than £10 billion this year alone, which places it as one of the G7’s biggest donors. Britain’s heroic contributions to the global coronavirus vaccination effort are a testament to our status.

In the light of that, we must think carefully about where to direct the Foreign Office and aid expenditure for the year ahead. The Government have been proactive in co-ordinating our diplomatic, defence, trade and aid networks as part of an overarching global Britain strategy. That is vital if we are to maximise our soft power and ensure value for every penny of taxpayers’ money.

We must complement our new approach by taking full advantage of our exit from the European Union and pivoting back towards the Commonwealth. I am incredibly passionate about Britain’s re-engagement with the Commonwealth. The Foreign Office must spend our money on re-establishing deep links with the countries with which we have long and meaningful ties by way of language, shared values, legal systems, governance and traditions. One of the many crimes of our entry into the Common Market was our move away from the Commonwealth, which has stayed by our side in times of war and difficulty over the centuries. We abandoned and subsequently neglected the Commonwealth for more than 40 years. Now is the time for us to reignite the flame and retake our position as a committed and equal partner to our brothers and friends.

Of course, what the left will not tell people about the Commonwealth is that we have far more in common with Singapore than Slovenia, with Australia than Austria and with Ghana than Germany. Contrary to the little Englander narrative, our embracing the Commonwealth embodies a truly global vision—one that is ethnically and religiously diverse and includes developing countries. Unlike the failed French Community, which existed for all the wrong reasons, the Commonwealth of nations is not an anachronistic throwback but a balanced and fair organisation in which every country has a voice, regardless of its size or wealth. Other Commonwealth countries are enthusiastic about their membership, and it is great to see countries such as Rwanda and Mozambique take advantage of the opportunities presented by the political association of 54 diverse countries by joining us. Many other territories are desperate to join this great unity of nations, with Somaliland and South Sudan having also applied.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend reassert the values of the Commonwealth, and I totally agree, but perhaps I should point out to him the fact that these cuts are going to hit our Commonwealth friends—that is where the money is being spent. He started off by saying that we were making cuts because we had incurred such great costs; perhaps he might tell the House where else cuts have been made. The only cut that has been made in the past 13 months is to the foreign aid budget.

[Alexander Stafford]

It is always a pleasure to take an intervention from my hon. Friend. He made two points. First, where should the cuts go? I say that the very first place cuts should be made is to foreign aid and the last place they should be made is anywhere that affects the people of Rother Valley and the people of all our seats. So, in the first place, it is correct that that is where the cuts should go.

On my hon. Friend’s point about the Commonwealth, I completely agree. It is right that we are giving aid, and we should direct more of that in a better way to deepen our ties with the Commonwealth. For me, this debate should not just be about 0.5%, 0.7% or perhaps 0.3%; it should be more about where that percentage is actually going. I argue that it should go towards our friends in countries with which we have deep historical links—to the Commonwealth; to those who have stood by us in good times and bad through hundreds of years, rather than to a political union that was brought about post the second world war in Europe.

It is clear to me that the best use of Foreign Office expenditure is investment in the Commonwealth rather than aid spending in countries outside the Commonwealth. This will allow Britain to maintain its place in the world, grow its footprint in the economies of the future and turbocharge global Britain post Brexit. Even more importantly, in the context of aid, our engagement with the Commonwealth can make the greatest difference to the most people in developing nations. Let me be clear about aid: by engaging with the Commonwealth we can help more people and more of the poorest people. That is very important.

The Commonwealth citizens with whom we have so much in common need our support, and we must now prioritise them. Our neglect of the Commonwealth—and we have neglected the Commonwealth—has unfortunately seen us abdicate responsibility for encouraging good governance and high standards in much of the world. If we reconnect now, it will allow us to speak up for the persecuted anglophone community in what was formerly the Southern Cameroons; to assist in the fight against Islamic extremists in east and west Africa; and to provide comprehensive support to the millions of British nationals in Hong Kong. Such issues must be front and centre as we pivot back towards the Commonwealth.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I emphasise that a cut in the aid budget does not mean a smaller, less influential Britain; it is simply fiscal common sense, allowing us to reduce our borrowing while protecting our constituents from the impact of the cuts. We are still left with a huge Foreign Office and aid budget, which should be redirected to fully embrace the Commonwealth of nations. If we do that, we can spread the benefits of global Britain from Barbados to Botswana, from India to Fiji and from Kenya to Malaysia. That will be a better world for us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for campaigning on this important issue. I also pay tribute to all the organisations and individuals who have provided support to countries across the globe, including Save the Children, the Red Cross, Oxfam, Global Justice Now and others.

I draw the House’s attention to the British Council, which works hard to encourage cultural, scientific, technological and educational co-operation with Britain. This week its CEO wrote to its Public and Commercial Services Union representative, warning that it intends to make 15% to 20% job cuts over the next two years. This is a disgrace. The programmes that the British Council undertakes internationally ensure global friendship with the United Kingdom. The Government must urgently intervene to save jobs and make funding available to plug the shortfall in the organisation.

The world has faced a catastrophic pandemic and, unless we take an internationalist view, we will never overcome this tragedy. Pulling up the drawbridge and hiding away from the rest of the world is never the answer, but that is exactly what the Government did when they made the political choice to abolish the Department for International Development and merge it with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the height of this pandemic. DFID was an international leader on development issues, and one of the best examples of global Britain.

During these pandemic times it is often said that no one is safe until everyone is safe, but the Government’s actions speak louder than words. They have cut vital coronavirus research, including a project tackling the variant in India, by 70%, and recent media reports have informed us that the Treasury delayed plans to send surplus PPE to India over a dispute regarding its allocation towards overall aid spending.

[Alexander Stafford]

The hon. Gentleman mentions so-called cuts, but will he acknowledge the vital role this Government have played in delivering vaccines and oxygen to countries like India? Actually, this country has given a lot to many other countries during the pandemic.

[Navendu Mishra]

This Government were one of the few to oppose the proposal from the South African and Indian Governments for a TRIPS waiver that would have resulted in vaccines, medical equipment and medicines related to covid being produced licence free. That would have led to much more vaccine being available, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to lobby his Front-Bench team to make sure the UK reverses its position on this important issue. We know that President Biden of the United States has reversed his position, having initially blocked the waiver proposed by India and South Africa. The unnecessary delays to PPE going to India have deeply negative consequences. Cutting aid will have almost no impact on the UK’s finances, but it will heighten poverty in some parts of the world.

In addition, there has been a £48 million cut to the NHS overseas training scheme, which trains medical staff in some of the poorest countries. The scheme works with 500 health facilities across Africa and Asia, in places that suffer a deficit of medical staff. The Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine would have seen NHS staff provide training to 78,000 healthcare workers in Nepal, Uganda, Ethiopia, Bangladesh and Myanmar. The UK has 820 Bangladeshis, 118 Ethiopians, 572 Ugandans and 1,988 Nepalis working in our NHS.

The CDC Group, which promotes privatisation and unaffordable private hospitals in the global south, is due to receive £779 million this year. It seems that cuts apply only to projects that support development. Disgracefully, aid spending targeted at meeting strategic priorities will be cut by only 37%, and funding for the much-criticised conflict, stability and security fund, which last year was found to have supported brutal police squads in Nigeria, has fallen by only 19%.

This multibillion pound cut to overseas development assistance has a momentous human cost. There is no question but that these cuts will result in thousands of unnecessary deaths. Cutting programmes including humanitarian aid, global health, girls’ education, water and sanitation, food insecurity and malnutrition, and sexual and reproductive health have real consequences. The UK must return to 0.7% of GNI on ODA, under the internationally agreed definition, and the Government must bring a meaningful vote to the House on this important decision.

Finally, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham thanking all aid workers across the world and the excellent FCDO staff. They do an important job in extremely challenging circumstances, and they deserve our support and gratitude.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Mangnall]

I totally agree. The point I am trying to make is that although we should use aid to support the Commonwealth and to enhance our ties, allowing them to see it directed as something that benefits because of our history, it is also an opportunity for us to look beyond that.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), as it is always a pleasure to follow her in her debates and to listen to her speak on a host of different issues. We have heard a number of hugely impressive speeches, including from my right hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), to mention just a few. They have all stood up and spoken about the value of international aid from this country to others and what it does to motivate, save and assist. The point was made at the beginning that the International Development Committee has not been given the true and accurate figures it deserves. I stood up and spoke on retaining that Committee, as I believe it has a value in scrutinising our foreign aid budgets and it must be secured. If it is not getting the correct information, I hope we might hear more about this, because it is essential that the Committee is given the tools to do its job.

The problem with estimates debates is that they take away from the reality of what we are actually talking about. We are standing in this Chamber talking about the vaccinations donated, the school books gifted, the sexual violence perpetrators brought to justice, the deradicalisation of terrorist organisations, all of which happens through our aid budget—it all happens through that 0.7% budget. So to talk about estimates takes away from the reality of the extraordinary work that we do across the country. Members may disagree with that and suggest that their constituents are not supportive of it, but when we stop polling and start asking them about international security, women’s education, vaccinations and justice for those who have committed rape in conflict zones across the world, we get a very different answer from that given in the polls that are put out.

[Alexander Stafford]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as he always does, on an issue of importance, and I agree with what he says about what happens when we ask residents about sexual violence in conflict—people do want answers. But when I speak to people in Rother Valley about these issues, they say, “What about the sexual violence in Maltby? What about the conflicts in Dinnington—the gangs and the knifings?” We have to be realistic; there is only so much money in the budget. If the budget is not cut here, it will be cut somewhere else, and residents of Rother Valley do not want it cut there.

[Anthony Mangnall]

With the greatest respect, the policing budget is not being cut. In addition, my hon. Friend is trying to make the point that by cutting the international aid budget he is going to see that money in Rother Valley—he is not. That money will go back into the Treasury. I go back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield about how small this is in terms of Treasury percentages and spending.

I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) earlier what temporary would look like and he said a year. I respectfully say to the Government that if they come to the Dispatch Box and say that it is a year I will acquiesce, I will sit down, and I will accept that a year’s cut is what needs to be done. I would argue that many other Members would do so, too. Unfortunately, we have found ourselves in something of a predicament. The announcement of the cut from 0.7% to 0.5% was made off the cuff at such rapid speed that organisations such as War Child and the HALO Trust, to name just two out of many hundreds, had their budgets cut and their international programmes jeopardised.

[Anthony Mangnall]

That is incredibly welcome to hear. My hon. Friend is right: there has been a double whammy in the reduction. International organisations have to deal with not only the cut itself but the overall GNI reduction. It is in place to make sure that in good years more money is available and in bad years less, thereby making the argument that we take stock of the economic situation. The point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who made the suggestion about the WaterAid programmes.

I am not against reform. I believe that we should be able to reform the ODA rules. I would love to see it spent in different ways that are more transparent and accountable. Many Members have made that point. Let us not take it down to 0.5%, but look at how we can reform it. Taking it from a single calendar year to a multi-year funding period of three or four years would give us the opportunity to look at different options so we can justify it to our constituents.

I believe that global Britain is about four things: defence, diplomacy, trade and development. All four are integrated. Failure to act and to work on one impacts the other. Our two aircraft carriers sailing around the world are hopefully unlikely to see conflict, but there is a humanitarian assistance vessel right there that could be used within our ODA budget. We must look at the impact on those different areas. Our aid pays for our security, as I have already mentioned. It is what stops terrorist organisations from across the world being able to flourish unencumbered.

We heard many from across the House say that if we led on this issue others would follow. They did. Many European countries have followed and are now reaching 0.7% targets. Canada has increased its target. America has increased its spending by £16 billion. We were leading. I ask about the message it sends to the world. In a year in which we host the G7 and COP26, and will have a good presence at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, we have the opportunity to lead by example.

[Alexander Stafford]

My hon. Friend asks what message it will send, but what message does it send to my constituents that overseas lives are more valuable than lives in this country? We have to be realistic about this—[Interruption.] It is not shameful. We are talking about messages and I ask him: what message does it send?

[Anthony Mangnall]

I would respectfully say to all of my hon. Friend’s constituents—I am happy to speak at any association event in the future—that their lives are no less valuable. What we are doing here is taking money from Peter to pay Paul. We must be honest about the value.

Human Rights in Hong Kong

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) for securing such an important debate.

Today marks two years since the pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong, which were attended by hundreds of thousands of people of all ages and backgrounds. That mighty display of people power symbolised an unwavering belief in civic values, hope and optimism for change, and a refusal to be cowed by the Communist party in Beijing. Two years on, however, every single person in the free world has a duty to feel horrified about the events taking place in Hong Kong, a supposedly free society.

Beijing detests dissent of any description, and in the past few years, it has tightened its stranglehold over free Hong Kong. The final straw was the huge protests against the extradition Bill. Almost immediately, Beijing imposed a security law straight out of the mainland Chinese playbook. What is most disturbing is that that repression was not discreet and creeping as one might have expected; instead, the Chinese are so brazen that they have turned Hong Kong into Shanghai overnight, banning vigils, destroying controversial books and libraries, and making mass arrests. It has sent a chill through society in Hong Kong. The grotesque policing of attempts to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre are testament to that. If that overnight transformation of society can happen in Hong Kong, it can happen anywhere.

There is no doubt in my mind that Britain is solely responsible for Hong Kong’s fate. We have a singular and enduring responsibility toward the people of Hong Kong as a former ruling power and the guarantor of the freedoms secured in the Sino-British joint declaration. Regrettably, we have not covered ourselves in glory in that role. There are no other examples of a leading democracy handing over a free society to an authoritarian regime that clearly could not be trusted. We failed again in the 1990s, when we made a grave and unforgivable mistake by granting Hongkongers a bespoke class of British citizenship in the run-up to the handover, abdicating our responsibilities. We have not done nearly enough to challenge China and make it pay for its actions.

Hundreds of thousands of British nationals have been left to their fate, and Asia’s brightest light is going out, with many fearing that Hong Kong will become just another Chinese city. We cannot stand by and watch. This is not only an attack on the people of Hong Kong, but a direct Chinese insult to the UK as a signatory of the joint declaration. In many ways, we have failed Hong Kong, and that failure occurred the moment we trusted China’s empty promises. That failure is evidenced by Hongkongers’ wholesale rejection of the PRC and everything it stands for, and their continued association with Britain. Hongkongers of course have their own proud sense of identity, but they also look to us as a guarantor of their freedoms and as a beacon of democracy.

I welcome the fact that this Government have somewhat corrected that previous folly by providing a pathway to full citizenship for British nationals overseas—that is commendable. I greatly look forward to welcoming Hongkongers to Britain, where they will make a hugely positive contribution to our society, but we could and must do so much more on all fronts.

What can be done? First, we must review British involvement, and the involvement of British nationals, in the Hong Kong police and judiciary, as we must not be complicit in Chinese oppression. Secondly, we must support Hongkongers who do not qualify for the BNO scheme. One of the few things that Portugal did right in Macau was to guarantee full Portuguese citizenship to all Macanese people. We have implemented that for our overseas territories, so we must look at it again for Hong Kong. Thirdly, we must marshal a strong and co-ordinated international response against China to make the Chinese think again. They must realise that this conduct is not acceptable anywhere, whether in the south China sea, Tibet, Xinjiang, the Indian borders or Taiwan.

Fourthly, and most importantly, we must never trust China again. The one country, two-systems model has been proven to be lie, and we must not be swayed by short-term financial dividends when dealing with China, as we know that by doing so, we will pay dearly in the long term. Lastly, young Hongkongers are the future of the city. We must do everything in our power to support them in their resistance, both here and in Hong Kong. I am certain that if we put those policies into action, freedom will once again reign from Gloucester Road to Victoria Peak, from Stanley to Aberdeen, from the Admiralty to Lamma Island, and from Kowloon to Queensway.