Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(2 days, 12 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on British society.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I welcome the opportunity to bring to the Floor of the House the issue of the impact on British society of the Equality Act 2010, a topic that I believe is increasingly being raised not only by my constituents in Romford, but more widely across the United Kingdom by people whose lives are affected on a daily basis because of this legislation. It has also been the subject of detailed research in the recent report from the think-tank Don’t Divide Us, which was co-authored by Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert and Dr Anna Loutfi, and which I commend to Members of all parties and to the wider public.
For centuries, our common-law tradition has been at the vanguard in the defence of what we consider our liberties as Britons. Ushered in 900 years ago and emboldened by Magna Carta in 1215, common law enshrined the once revolutionary principle that all individuals are equal before the law, judged not as members of groups, but as subjects of the Crown, with inherent rights. From that tradition came trial by jury, which has its origins in Anglo-Saxon England, habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. Were those gifts from Brussels or Strasbourg? Of course not. They are the hard-won fruits of our own history and the innovative quality of our forebears and the generations that have come before us.
When the Equality Act was passed in 2010, we were told by the now Baroness Harman that it would end discrimination, give everyone a fair chance in life and bring transparency. Those are fine words indeed, yet they give the impression that Parliament can, through sheer willpower, eliminate some of the more damaging and derisive aspects of human nature. Fifteen years on, the reality is, I am sad to say, very different. The Act has not united our country; it has divided it. It has not reduced discrimination; it has fuelled grievance. It has not strengthened our traditions of fairness; it has undermined them. In fact, it has fanned the very flames that it sought to extinguish.
In the first instance, the Act is woefully drafted. Let us take as an example the alleged definition of race. Section 9 defines that as including, but not limited to, “colour; nationality; ethnic or national origins.” That is imprecise and confusing and has generated a grey area in law. Simply put, it is a poor expression of parliamentary intention, whatever that was at the time. We are also seeing absurd contradictions. Section 13(5) bans racial segregation, yet guidance under the Equality Act allows organisations to create separate spaces based on combinations of protected characteristics. In practice, that could mean the state sanctioning racial segregation in Britain in 2025, all in the name of equality.
The Act and the imported ideology that underpins it have created a culture of division and victimhood. It is the legislative foundation of what today is called DEI—diversity, equity and inclusion—and the ever-expanding industry of woke training sessions and quotas.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
As bad as that situation is, it is in fact accentuated and worsened by the prevailing situation in Northern Ireland, where not only have we equality legislation, but, pursuant to article 2 of the protocol governing post-Brexit arrangements, there are applied additional so-called rights that have been used by activist judges to strike down already two pieces of legislation from this Parliament—the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Whether one agrees with the content or not, is it not quite appalling that within one part of the United Kingdom there are foreign jurisdictions imported through the protocol that give different so-called rights from elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Before I call Andrew Rosindell again, I remind Members that if they would like to make a significant contribution today, they should bob, and I will get them in for the debate. I call Andrew Rosindell.
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right that in this country, sadly, we have divided our own nation by treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the kingdom. That was a huge error by, I am afraid to say, the last Conservative Government, which agreed to the Northern Ireland protocol and then the Windsor framework. I am against both, and I look forward to a future Government repealing them so that we have one United Kingdom, where all people in these islands are treated equally and the same.
As set out clearly by Don’t Divide Us, the truth is that the Equality Act should really be called the inequality Act. Instead of treating every citizen as an individual equal before the law, the Equality Act elevates certain so-called protected characteristics and encourages people to see themselves not as fellow Britons, but as members of competing groups. Far from promoting individual merit, the Equality Act is simply state-sponsored identity politics.
What has been the result? Our English legal system has sadly been Americanised through the introduction of a corrosive culture of litigation in the workplace. Since 2017, race discrimination claims in employment tribunals have tripled, with more than 200,000 cases. Yet only 5% have been upheld, which tells us something very important: either Britain is riddled with invisible discrimination that even our judges cannot detect, which, given the richness of our legal traditions, I simply do not accept, or the law is unfit for purpose. In practice, it has turned the workplace into a battleground of claims and counterclaims. Despite the small number of successful claims, the statistics demonstrate the damage caused in places of work. Victim culture has not only been allowed to dominate the workplace, but been actively encouraged by the legislation.
To take one example, in the case of Williams v. Nottingham, the judge noted:
“the claimant thinks the existence of a ‘racial disparity’ is in…itself proof of racism”.
However, the damage goes much deeper. The Equality Act is not simply a tidying-up of previous anti-discrimination laws; as hinted earlier, it represents a wholesale shift away from our common-law tradition where everyone is equal before the law towards a continental EU-style system based on substantive equality, group rights and bureaucratic enforcement. It was inspired by EU directives, in direct contradiction of our legal heritage. It hands enormous power to quangos, activist lawyers and DEI consultants, while eroding the space for free thought, free speech and personal judgment.
Some right hon. and hon. Members suggest that repealing the Equality Act would mean enabling inequality, but that is simply wrong. Just as repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 would not abolish human rights, repealing the Equality Act would not abolish equality. Human rights and equality existed long before these Blairite statutes. In fact, equality as we would define it today finds its roots here in these islands of the United Kingdom.
The underlying ideology of diversity is not neutral, as many on the left of politics suggest. It treats diversity as an unqualified good and, by implication, majority identity—whether English, Scots, Christian or British—as a problem to be managed. That is why so many of our constituents feel that these laws are not written for them and certainly not in their interests. The majority who simply want to live by the law, pay their taxes and contribute to society feel increasingly alienated by a system that tells them they have privilege that must be checked, while others are encouraged to claim special treatment. That does not sound like equality to me.
The Equality Act has given rise to a sprawling industry, made up of an army of bureaucrats, consultants, trainers and lawyers, all feeding off the taxpayer. Repealing it, as I am advocating today, would mean considerable savings, as vast sums of public money are poured into funding this circus. Repealing the legislation would both restore common sense to our institutions and deliver real value for money to the taxpayer. Estimates suggest substantial savings, with annual reductions in compliance costs running into tens or probably thousands of millions—it is very hard to quantify, but it is a huge sum of money when we consider all the public institutions that spend money on promoting the DEI agenda, money that should be going to our frontline public services instead.
The NHS Confederation has indicated that DEI roles alone are costing the taxpayer nearly £40 million, and I am sure that is an underestimate of what is really being spent. That is just one sector; goodness only knows what the total bill is across the public sector, in local government, the police and educational institutions—and let us not forget the BBC. It is time to put the taxpayer first and end this costly charade.
The private sector and the corporate world have also been sucked into this dangerous ideology, spending vast sums of money in ticking every woke box while engaging in constant virtue signalling. None of this is cost-free to the public either: ultimately, it all must be paid for out of the pockets of their customers. Some will say, “But you had 14 years in government—why didn’t you repeal it?” to which I say that I, the Member of Parliament for Romford, have opposed the Equality Act from the very beginning. I never believed it would deliver what was promised, and I have consistently warned of the dangers of this ideological agenda. Sadly, too many in my party doubled down on it; some even wanted to extend it. I know that the shadow Minister here today, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), is not of that view, but sadly, over the last 14 years, many in my party sucked it all up, carried on with it and wanted to extend it. That was a grave mistake, and Britain is suffering as a result.
The Labour Government talk of introducing a new race equality Act—another bright idea from the same failed mindset. The Equality Act has caused so much harm; adding another layer of identity politics into the law will make matters even worse, and I urge the Government to rethink that idea.
Likewise, we increasingly hear calls to adopt a legal definition of Islamophobia. What kind of society do we want to live in? One where these proposed definitions conflate criticism of an ideology or a religion with hatred of people? Criticising Islam as a religion is not the same as hating people of the Muslim faith. Indeed, freedom of thought and freedom of speech require the ability to critique religious ideas, no matter what the religion may be. To criminalise such critique would be wholly inconsistent with the liberal, democratic principles that have evolved in this country over centuries.
It is more important than ever that we as Members of Parliament, in the mother of all Parliaments, do not cower from taking decisions that, at face value, may seem unpopular. Trust me: the residents of my constituency of Romford, and in every corner of the United Kingdom, would wholeheartedly endorse the reversal of these laws, as the problems we face lie at the heart of the legislation itself.
In my opinion, we should repeal the Equality Act root and branch, we should repeal the Human Rights Act, and the United Kingdom should withdraw from the European convention on human rights. Indeed, we should dismantle the Blairite constitutional reforms that have corroded our democracy and wedged our politics between a long-standing tradition of parliamentary sovereignty on the one hand, where power rests in this place—the Crown in Parliament—and an attempt at an American-style separation of powers on the other hand that has led to the outsourcing of Parliament’s ability to govern to so-called experts.
Those systems are mutually exclusive, and we must pick one. As a Conservative and Unionist, I see the intrinsic value of defending the constitutional traditions that have embedded themselves in these islands for 1,000 years and that have been exported successfully around the world, to the Commonwealth nations in particular. We must return to the great principle that has served this country well for centuries: equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender or background. That is the British way. That is our common law tradition. That is the true way to guarantee equality.
The Equality Act is not bringing our people together; rather, it is driving them apart. It is fuelling an imported woke culture, an unmeritocratic DEI bureaucracy and a corrosive culture of grievance. We must therefore challenge the equality law house of cards constructed over previous decades and topple it to the ground—or face the prospect of an ever more divided society. We should be proud to identify ourselves as British first and foremost and be truly glad to live in a society where all are treated equally under the ancient laws and customs that have made these cherished islands the great nation that it is and must continue to be.
Andrew Rosindell
Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for chairing today’s debate, which has been extremely valuable. We have heard excellent contributions. There have been different opinions, but we have debated this issue in a respectful way. There are issues to be addressed, and all Members who spoke today have made extremely valid points, coming from different angles. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for his remarks. I took on board the point he made about caste discrimination, which is rarely spoken about. I thank him for drawing that to our attention.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always makes incredibly valid points in all the debates in which he speaks. He made the point that we may have differences—we all do, as we are all individuals; none of us are the same—but we have to live side by side, and legislation should empower the British people to live side by side in a free society, not pit them against one another and accentuate division by emphasising differences between us. We should be united as British people, rather than looking at how we can be more divided and act like we are victims. Too many in our society today are doing that because the Equality Act has created that culture.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made extremely powerful comments, and I agree with everything she said, particularly about the public sector—especially local government—and how diversity culture has taken over, wasting so much money, causing so many divisions and ignoring issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made the point about focusing on what matters to real people in the real world, rather than looking inwards. Let us focus on providing good, efficient public services rather than draining resources with the diversity agenda.
I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). They also made extremely valid points, particularly about the division of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom, which I have always opposed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey got absolutely to the point of where this has all gone wrong. All of us want to see people treated fairly and decently in a society in which freedom is cherished, but it does not all have to be legislated for. Often things evolve; society changes in a natural way. If we try to legislate for everything, that is just a gift to the lawyers, judges and consultants, and all the people who will monetise legislation that gives them the opportunity to.
I have always respected the Minister, and she spoke brilliantly today. She made points that I did not agree with, but many that I did agree with. I think we have all been subjected to hateful language—as Members of Parliament, we get that probably more than most people—and hatred is wrong in any context. We should always treat people with respect, kindness and generosity, but at the same time prevent those with bad intentions from causing more divisions, so our legislation needs to be minimal rather than opening up more opportunities for division in society.
Ultimately, I believe in freedom—freedom with responsibility. I do not believe that diversity is always the right answer. It can cause division, and I think equality can sometimes be the opposite of freedom, so let us get back to basics. Let us be proud of our British heritage, which has always been based on fairness and equality under the law of these islands.
I thank all Members for participating in this important debate and I say to those who have not had the chance: please get a copy of the Don’t Divide Us report, because it explains a lot of things that we as Members of Parliament should be addressing today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on British society.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Government have now been forced to admit the real cost of the catastrophic Chagos surrender deal: it is not £3.4 billion—oh no, Mr Speaker—it is a mind blowing £34.7 billion, which is 10 times more that we were told. No wonder Mauritius is planning tax cuts of its own, and it is British businesses and families who will pay the price. This deal leaves our country poorer, our defence capabilities damaged and our standing in the world weakened. Will the Minister now apologise to the British people for this epic failure in diplomacy, withdraw his Chagos surrender Bill and keep the islands British?
Stephen Doughty
How ever many times the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) or the Conservative party in its emails to supporters make this claim about the cost, it does not mean that it is true—it is not. The £30 billion figure is inaccurate and misleading. It is wrong to ignore the cost of inflation and the change in the value of money, over the real cost of a deal that lasts 99 years. The figures are verified by the Government Actuary’s Department, drawing on long-established methodology. I have set out the costs. We will not scrimp on national security. Quite frankly, the brass neck from Conservative Members, after they disinvested in our armed forces and our defence over the entire time they were in office, is quite extraordinary.
Humanitarian Situation in Sudan
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Dr Huq. It is appropriate that, as someone who has always stood up for humanitarian causes, self-determination and the rights of peoples around the world, you are chairing this important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall this afternoon, on the last day of term. She has been a principled voice on the issue in Parliament for a very long time; I commend her for it.
I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on Sudan and South Sudan—not least Glen Promnitz of its secretariat, who is here today—for keeping parliamentarians briefed and informed on the ongoing situation in the region, especially when so much of the world appears, regrettably, to have fallen silent. They have done an excellent job; I commend them for all their work.
I would like to refer to some, although not all, of the comments that have been made this afternoon. I have just said that the world is regrettably silent, but this House has not been silent this afternoon. I have heard some very passionate speeches and comments from all parts of the House. Considering how much is happening in the world today and how many issues we do talk about, we have not spoken as much as we should about Sudan. The nature of the conflict and the dreadful repercussions on the people of Sudan is absolutely horrendous, and we are right to debate it.
The hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke about the health risks in the region. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and other colleagues spoke about the importance of the diaspora in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) spoke about the use of gender-based violence as a weapon of war; he was right to do so. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as chairman of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, spoke passionately about the issue and gave examples of where we need to highlight it.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) talked about the denial of humanitarian aid as a weapon, a point that was taken up by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed); I thank both Members for highlighting it. It seems that it is now common practice in conflicts that the withholding of humanitarian aid is being used as a weapon, which is dreadful and appalling. I was particularly struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Edmonton and Winchmore Hill (Kate Osamor), who spoke about war crimes and crimes against humanity, and about how justice is needed in such cases. She paid tribute to the diaspora here in the UK. She said that the Sudanese people are not forgotten and that we must stand with them. I agree. She summed up the mood of the House this afternoon.
The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who did a fine job in her time as Minister, spoke today with knowledge and experience of the topic. It is a shame that she is not still in her place as a Minister, but we thank her for continuing to take an interest in this very important subject.
Like other Members today, I wish to express my deep and growing concern for the people of Sudan, a nation in the grip of one of the most harrowing and shamefully overlooked humanitarian crises of our time. The conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has torn this ancient country apart. According to the United Nations, more than 25 million people—over half of Sudan’s population—are now in need of humanitarian assistance. The World Food Programme warns that 18 million people face acute food insecurity, with 5 million in serious danger and over 750,000 children suffering from severe malnutrition. Hospitals and aid convoys have come under attack, entire communities have been displaced, and reports continue to emerge of ethnic cleansing, gender-based violence and mass killings, particularly in Darfur.
In April, as has been mentioned, the United Kingdom co-hosted an international humanitarian conference on Sudan. It announced that £120 million would be spent in humanitarian funding, supplementing the tens of millions provided by the last Government. However, nearly three months later, we must ask—and I hope the Minister will respond—what that money has been used for. Where has the money gone? Has the funding reached frontline organisations and local civil society actors working to deliver urgent assistance? Is it getting over the border at the scale required? Is there deconfliction to ensure that it is distributed to the innocent civilians who require that funding?
As the penholder on Sudan at the United Nations, the United Kingdom holds a unique and vital responsibility, but I must ask whether the UK is currently doing enough. Are we using our position at the Security Council to its fullest extent? What will the UK do through the United Nations Security Council in the time ahead to push for action on humanitarian corridors and for independent investigations into war crimes, and to hold the perpetrators to account?
More broadly, will the Minister tell us what new measures the Government are taking to compel the warring parties into a much-needed ceasefire? How is the UK supporting Sudanese civilian and political forces to engage in constructive dialogue processes such as the Cairo conference? What is the Minister’s assessment of the current effectiveness of such processes and of the Jeddah process? What action does she propose to take on external factors influencing the war?
The House would also welcome clarity on whether the Government are exploring replicating the approach of our American allies to sanctions. The United States recently imposed further targeted sanctions. The previous Government recognised that those measures send a clear message that those who commit appalling acts will be held accountable, which is why we implemented a number of sanctions on those supporting the activities of the Rapid Support Forces and of the Sudanese Armed Forces.
I welcome the appointment of the UK special envoy for Sudan, but that cannot be the sum of our response. It cannot be a substitute for a full and proper strategy, which I hope the Minister will outline later in her remarks. We, on this side of the House, call on His Majesty’s Government, first, to provide a full and transparent update on the disbursement and impact of the £120 million pledged in April; secondly, to clarify how the UK is supporting frontline humanitarian agencies and set out its diplomatic engagement with regional actors; thirdly, to push for stronger co-ordinated action at the UN and with our allies, including support for a ceasefire and accountability for atrocities committed; and finally, to clearly set out their position on where they could do more on the possibility of sanctions.
Finally, although this Westminster Hall debate is crucial for raising awareness and pressing for much-needed action, the gravity of the situation in Sudan demands the highest level of Government focus. I therefore urge the Foreign Secretary to come to the House at the earliest opportunity—probably not until September now—to make a comprehensive statement outlining the Government’s full and proper plan of action to address this ongoing catastrophe. We need to see a clear, unified strategy that matches the scale and urgency of this crisis.
Britain has long played a role in Sudan, with deep historical ties that stretch back centuries. From the days of General Gordon in Khartoum, and our administration of Sudan during the Anglo-Egyptian condominium, Britain has been intrinsically involved in the shaping of Sudan’s modern identity. A successful Sudan, then, is not distant from our national story; it is, in part, a reflection of ourselves. None of this happened in a vacuum; our knowledge of the region, long-standing diplomatic channels and moral voice on the world stage place the United Kingdom in a position to lead. We must honour that tradition in Sudan. The world may not be watching, but Britain must not look away.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Leaving time for Harpreet Uppal to conclude, I call the Minister.
Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, not least as you have another role as trade envoy to New Zealand. I was very pleased to visit Christchurch, New Zealand, some years ago to see its magnificent cathedral. I then went again a few years later and saw that it had been destroyed. I pay tribute to our New Zealander friends because theirs is a Christian country, they uphold Christian values and they are part of our Commonwealth family.
Many New Zealand MP friends of mine would be fascinated by, and very supportive of, this wonderful and important debate. I commend the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing it and, more importantly, for continuing the work of our friend and former colleague Fiona Bruce, who was Member of Parliament for Congleton until last year. We can all agree that the hon. Gentleman is doing a splendid job as the special envoy on freedom of religion or belief, upholding the values shared by Members on both sides of the House. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for paying tribute to Fiona; she is a lovely person and we miss her. But we are delighted that the work she started is being continued by the hon. Member for North Northumberland.
The British nation has always stood resolutely for liberty, not just here at home but around the world. We are one of the few nations that have appointed a special envoy of this nature, and that is no small thing. But with that leadership comes immense responsibility. When millions across the globe face violence, imprisonment and discrimination simply because of what they believe, we cannot look the other way or pass by on the other side. We have a moral obligation to defend the fundamental freedoms that have shaped our history in these islands and defined our values. We must never retreat from upholding what is right. Indeed, it is precisely because we always stand firm in defence of such principles that the United Kingdom commands such deep respect around the world. Liberty generally, and freedom of religion or belief more broadly, must be at the heart of our foreign policy.
I commend all Members who spoke in this debate. I pay particular reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for highlighting the issue of what is happening in Taybeh, and how horrific the actions taken there are. It is very upsetting to hear, and I hope that our friends in Israel will be listening to this debate. As someone who is, and has always been, pro-Israel, I am very upset to hear what is going on. My heart goes out to the members of St George’s church, the Christian community and all those being persecuted or losing their lives in that dreadful conflict.
At the start of his speech, the hon. Member for North Northumberland spoke about visiting the Soviet Union and seeing the persecution there. I remember that during my days in the Young Conservatives we supported freedom of religion in the Soviet Union; Bibles were being smuggled over there—a lot of work was going on in those days. Earlier this year, I visited Shkodër, in the north of Albania. I visited a prison where the most appalling torture had taken place under the vile Albanian communist regime. We all agree that the world must move on from those atrocities and not go back. Sadly, there are parts of the world where these things continue. We must stand together, unified against such things.
I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury for making a clear statement: he said that we should be bold and courageous in proclaiming our Christian faith. And so we should. The entirety of the foundations, traditions, customs and heritage of our country are based on the Christian faith. The cross is on the top of the crown—when the King wears the crown, there is a cross on the top. That means that all religions and denominations are equal, but there has to be an understanding that there is a Christian foundation to our society.
I say to the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) that I was honoured to travel to Iceland a few years ago with Lord Campbell-Savours, the hon. Member’s father. We had many discussions about all kinds of things. The hon. Member has a wonderful father, who serves in the other place, and I am delighted to see that he is continuing his father’s work and talking about Iceland, a country with which we have a huge amount in common. There are many dear friends in that country. I also thank the hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for speaking in this significant debate.
We learned last week, and this has been articulated this afternoon, that the FCDO has now announced a five-point strategy on freedom of religion or belief. That is a welcome step, but as ever it is not about the plan—it is about delivery. What matters now is whether this Government are matching the words with actions.
The first point that has been articulated is that of upholding international standards. The UK has long had influence in international forums, as a member of the UN Security Council and given that our capital, London, is home to the Commonwealth Secretariat, but are we really using that influence to lead the charge on religious freedom to the full? Are we naming those who trample on religious rights? Are we truly standing up to regimes that ignore international law and persecute people of faith? Or are we hesitating when that might come at a diplomatic cost? Maybe the Minister can answer those questions later.
Secondly, on bilateral engagement, Ministers regularly tell us that they raise these issues behind closed doors. When will we see the results? What outcomes have been achieved from our talks with long-standing members of the Commonwealth, such as, for instance, Pakistan, where blasphemy laws continue to be abused with devastating effect; or Nigeria, where only last year, 218 Christians were slaughtered by Islamic fundamentalists in the middle belt? Have we made clear to those Governments that this simply cannot go on and that there will be consequences if it does?
And what about China? The persecution of Uyghur Muslims, Christians and Falun Gong practitioners has long been systematic, brutal and well-documented. Governments, past and present, talk of engagement, but what does that mean in practice? Given that His Majesty’s Government have gone back on their promise of a fully published China audit, will the Minister assure us all today that freedom of religion and belief will be front and centre in any negotiations with the Chinese Communist party? Or are we still willing to trade human rights for economic deals and the allure of a super-embassy on prime real estate in London? Is that really something we should be supporting?
The third strand of the FCDO’s policy strategy is building coalitions. In principle, of course I support that, but coalitions must be seen to be achieving things. Who are our partners? What practical steps have we taken with allies to defend freedom of religion and belief in the toughest regions, such as the Sahel, the middle east or central America? Have we formed joint initiatives or are we merely issuing polite statements?
John Slinger
A constituent of mine, Nicola, has raised concerns highlighted by the Open Doors charity about the case of Mehran Shamloui. He is a Christian who fled Iran to avoid being imprisoned for his faith and has apparently been detained after being deported back to Iran, and charged with propaganda against Islamic law and membership of groups opposing the state. He now faces an uncertain future. Does the hon. Member agree with me that cases relating to that particular country and regime must be a focus of our Government?
Andrew Rosindell
Of course; I could not possibly disagree. Now that point is on the record, I am sure the Minister will take note and take that case forward.
The fourth strand is about maintaining FORB across the FCDO. If done properly, that could be transformative. But, again, where is the detail? Are our ambassadors trained on FORB? Are they expected to report on it? Is religious freedom considered when we decide where aid goes or when arms are sold? Is FORB integrated in our dealings with Commonwealth partners, many of whom face significant challenges on these issues? Or is it still viewed as a specialist interest and a box simply to be ticked?
The final point is civil society. Those brave individuals on the ground are often the first line of defence for religious freedom. They speak out when Governments will not. They face threats, harassment and even death. How are we supporting them? Are we funding grassroots organisations? Are we giving them access to our embassies and high commissions, our diplomats and our protection, or are they being left to fend for themselves?
At the recent FCDO briefing on this subject, cases were presented regarding countries such as Nicaragua, Eritrea, Yemen and Afghanistan. The picture was bleak, with repressive laws, targeted killings and the crushing of dissent. This is seemingly part of a wider pattern. In Nicaragua, the Ortega regime is targeting the Catholic Church in a campaign of repression. In Eritrea, Christians are languishing in prison.
In Yemen, religious minorities are caught between war and persecution. In Syria and Iraq, ancient communities have been decimated. What exactly is the UK doing in each of those places? Where are the consequences for those who commit these crimes?
The Government recently announced the suspension of sanctions on the new Syrian Government. However, as recently as this week, we have witnessed the eruption of violence between the Druze minority and Islamists, with the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reporting dozens of deaths. In the light of those developments, was the suspension of sanctions on Syria premature? I think it was. If FORB is central to our foreign policy, was the suspension of sanctions on Syria an indication that religious freedom has been restored in Syria? Are we monitoring the dangers faced by religious and ethnic minorities such as the Druze, who have long sought to remain neutral in Syria’s civil conflict?
The sad truth is that freedom of religion and belief is deteriorating and violations are increasing. Perpetrators are becoming more brazen and the people who are suffering, be they Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Yazidis, Jewish people, Baha’is or others, too often have nowhere to turn. If the Government are prepared to back fine words with firm action, let us see it now. Will they publish regular updates on how the five-point strategy is being delivered? Will they bring transparent, accountable and measurable goals into the work published?
I believe that Britain has always stood for freedom. Let us not falter now. We have a voice through the previous Government’s creation of the special envoy position. We have the tools now; what we need is the resolve to use them. I urge the Minister to ensure that all our talk of freedom of religion and belief is not merely honeyed words, but a real statement of intent from His Majesty’s Government that we take this seriously and that those who violate the sacrosanct principles of religious freedom will suffer the consequences.
BBC World Service Funding
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing this important debate and thank him for his powerful words supporting the BBC World Service. I think he speaks for most hon. Members of the House—in fact, I am struck by how many speeches I have heard that we all agree with. There is a consensus in this Chamber that the BBC World Service is such an important tool for soft power. I know that everyone has spoken with passion, and it is important that we ensure that it not only survives, but thrives and continues to play an important role around the world, because so many people depend on the BBC World Service.
As its name suggests, the World Service is not merely a broadcaster that serves the United Kingdom’s purposes; to some, it is a lifeline. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) mentioned Terry Waite. That was an example when the BBC World Service was a lifeline to someone who was in a very difficult position. Many people around the world depend on that voice of truth, reason and liberty, and that is what the BBC World Service provides, away from so many state-controlled media organisations that promote propaganda and misinformation, which are sadly on the rise today.
It is said that power falls into three categories: military power, economic power and soft power. It is British soft power—our cultural influence, our values and our institutions, not least our monarchy, which the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned —that has long distinguished the United Kingdom on the global stage. The vehicle at the heart of that soft power and influence is the British Broadcasting Corporation World Service.
In 2011, when I was a relatively new member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we stated unequivocally that the World Service is a key component of Britain’s soft power. The FAC recognised its invaluable work in
“providing a widely respected and trusted news service in combination with high-quality journalism”
to many countries. We said then, as I will say now, that its value far outweighs its “relatively small cost”.
As we have heard, the service reaches an audience of more than 320 million people each week. It broadcasts in 42 languages and has a profound impact on some of the world’s most repressive regimes. In Iran, 13.5 million rely on the BBC World Service; in Afghanistan, it is 4.9 million; and in Russia, it is more than 2 million. Yet today, this institution is under increasing financial strain.
This year alone, the BBC World Service has announced 130 job losses, seeking to save just £6 million—a tiny sum, measured against the service’s global influence. Meanwhile, its total deficit is expected to rise to nearly £500 million next year. There is a serious risk that the core language services, such as those that serve Iran, Sudan and Myanmar, could face cuts or be scaled back when they are most needed, so we must ensure that does not happen. Indeed, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard clear evidence only in November that cuts to the BBC Arabic and Persian radio services have created dangerous vacuums, which are being filled by hostile, state-backed propaganda, including Russian-backed media in places such as Lebanon. What assessment have the Government made of the consequences of the cuts, and how do they intend to respond to the risk of allowing trusted UK-backed voices to go silent in those critical regions?
To address those issues, the BBC has called for the Government to fund the rise to £200 million as part of a three-year settlement. In the longer term, it is proposed that the Government assume nearly all of the £400 million budget after 2027. The Foreign Affairs Committee, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the International Development Committee have echoed the calls for long-term financial certainty.
Lord Collins has indicated that a decision will be taken as part of the Government’s 2025 spending review. However, the FCDO’s own efficiency plans, published alongside this month’s review, exclude the BBC World Service from projected savings, citing uncertainty around the transition of the ODA budget to 0.3% of GNI by 2027. The Minister needs to address that concern in her remarks. I therefore say to her: have the Government set any efficiency targets for the World Service? Can she clarify what scale of reduction in direct grant funding is being considered as part of this transition?
I often discuss the wider debate about the BBC’s domestic funding with my constituents in Romford, and I am sure all hon. Members have similar discussions. I would welcome having that discussion in this House too, but the World Service is different; it stands apart. It is not a domestic broadcaster—it reaches all parts of the world—so it cannot be lumped together with the BBC’s domestic broadcasting. The World Service needs clarity and certainty if it is to continue its vital work across the globe.
One proposal raised during the FAC’s oral evidence session is for a clearer funding distinction. English-language services should continue under the licence fee, while language services should receive dedicated Government grant in aid. Do the Government support that proposal? If so, would the Minister consider, as suggested by the former director of the World Service, Jamie Angus, allowing parliamentarians to oversee and scrutinise the work of the BBC World Service?
The previous Conservative Government rightly recognised the strategic importance of the BBC World Service and took meaningful steps to support it. The £20 million boost announced in the 2023 integrated review helped to safeguard all 42 language services through to the end of 2025. That followed earlier, targeted injections of £4.1 million in 2022 and £8 million in 2021, designed to counter disinformation and expand digital engagement. Those were timely and effective interventions, which strengthened the World Service when it was most needed, but what is now required is a long-term, sustainable funding settlement that builds on that solid foundation.
Funding is not the only challenge. Modernisation must go hand in hand with financial stability to ensure that the product is viable for the future. Is the BBC doing enough to engage younger, digitally native audiences across the world? Can it continue to evolve while maintaining the editorial depth and credibility for which it is rightly respected? Do the Government have confidence that the current digital strategy is sufficiently robust to meet the demands of this new age?
On the other hand, radio remains vital in many regions, particularly where internet access is limited or non-existent. Do the Government acknowledge the ongoing strategic value of traditional radio services, and will they ensure that they are not sacrificed prematurely in the rush towards digital-only broadcasting?
There is also the question of political neutrality, which is one of the BBC World Service’s greatest strengths—I hope; it is not always the case in the UK, but I hope it is the case with the BBC World Service. Its global reputation rests on its independence. It must never speak for any Government, but it should, proudly and without hesitation, reflect the values, culture and identity of the United Kingdom. That does not mean becoming a mouthpiece for Westminster, but neither should it shy away from showcasing our constitutional monarchy, our democratic institutions or our national symbols—the Union flag or the national anthem.
There is a balance to be struck, and I ask the Minister what representations the Government are making to the current BBC leadership to ensure that balance is struck. Alarmingly, the 2025 global soft power index shows that the UK has fallen to third place, behind China for the first time. Following the announcement of the Soft Power Council by the Foreign Secretary and the Culture, Media and Sport Secretary earlier this year, will the Minister tell us what role the council sees for the World Service in its work? What progress has been made to date, or has the initiative been quietly set aside?
The British Isles, Great Britain, England, the United Kingdom—however the world sees us—have always been more than just a geographical place on the map. We have been an idea, forged through sacrifice and struggle, to uphold something unparalleled: a set of values, rich in customs, traditions and ceremony; a way of life that millions admire across the globe. The BBC World Service projects that very idea further and more effectively than any embassy, high commission, foreign aid programme or Minister ever could. If we allow the World Service to become a casualty of bureaucratic inertia or short-term budget trimming, it will be not Britain’s voice that falls silent, but the voice of reason, truth and liberty, in places where those things are in short supply.
As the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, once stated, the BBC World Service is
“possibly Britain’s greatest gift to the world”.
That gift has never been more needed. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I urge the Government to ensure that it remains the gift that keeps on giving to peoples around the world, in every continent, who look to Britain as a beacon of freedom, a nation that always upholds liberty, and one that will stop at nothing to defend the right of free speech.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Labour’s surrender of British sovereignty has been welcomed by China, Russia and Iran, and now we learn that the UK will have to notify Mauritius of any military operations coming from Diego Garcia, jeopardising our national security. Far from upholding our international obligations, this treaty is a shameful betrayal of British Chagossians, with no guarantee of access to the Mauritian-controlled £40 million trust fund and British taxpayers forking out £30 billion to subsidise tax cuts in Mauritius. Why will the Government not allow this House a proper debate and a vote before next week’s 21-day deadline under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010? Should we not keep the Chagos islands British and under the protection of the Crown? Would that not be a better policy?
Stephen Doughty
Half of the hon. Gentleman’s question was rhetoric and half of it was completely wrong. He might want to consider correcting the record on a number of points. We do not have to inform Mauritius before undertaking military action from the base; that relates to expedition information after actions, so there is no fettering of our ability to operate from there. The costs he quoted were simply wrong. It is £101 million averaged over the course of the deal, and the net present value of the payments is £3.4 billion. All sorts of wild figures have been posted around, but they do not reflect the reality. This has been considered by the Government Actuary. I would really have hoped, given the wide geopolitical threats that this country and our allies face at the moment, that he would come up with some more serious questions.
Political Prisoners
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I commend the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing the debate and for defending so courageously Jimmy Lai. He is not merely her constituent; he is one of us. He is a British citizen, and as such he deserves the full protection, advocacy and diplomatic support that the United Kingdom extends to all its nationals under threat abroad.
I thank all the hon. Members who have spoken up today for Jimmy and other political prisoners who are unlawfully detained. His Majesty’s Opposition will always support the Government in all their efforts to free British citizens who are locked up unlawfully in parts of the world where regimes carry out such atrocities.
Mr Lai, of course, is currently imprisoned in Hong Kong under Beijing’s draconian and unaccountable national security law, which has criminalised dissent and dismantled every safeguard that once distinguished Hong Kong from the Chinese mainland. Jimmy Lai is being persecuted for the crime of believing in democracy, for founding Apple Daily, one of Hong Kong’s most popular pro-democracy newspapers, and for calling out the encroachment of the Chinese Communist party into the life of the city that once, under the British Crown, enjoyed liberty, autonomy and the rule of law. He has done all that at the age of 77, despite his serious health conditions.
Beijing has trampled on the promises made in the Sino-British joint declaration, a treaty lodged at the United Nations and signed in good faith. That agreement guaranteed Hong Kong’s freedom, rule of law and way of life, but today those guarantees lie in tatters and people such as Jimmy are paying the price.
Despite the cruelty inflicted upon him, Jimmy Lai’s spirit remains unbroken. His quiet defiance calls to mind the courage of dissidents during the final years of the cold war—acts of resistance that were welcomed and celebrated by leaders across the democratic world, not least by our own former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. The same unwavering belief in liberty should, I believe, stir the conscience of every free nation today, just as it did then, and shame us into action.
The British Government have said that Jimmy Lai’s case is a “priority”. I welcome that, but I must ask the Minister what the Government mean by that in practice. What do they consider success in Jimmy Lai’s case—his release, or simply raising the issue diplomatically? Surely, rather being seen as simply a complex consular case, it needs to be seen as one with serious geopolitical ramifications. From where I stand, the message coming from Downing Street is worryingly vague. It appears—I say this with regret—that the defence of human rights is being quietly traded for economic expediency.
What is worse is that what is happening to Jimmy Lai is not an isolated injustice; it is part of a wider campaign by Beijing to silence criticism, intimidate the diaspora and exert extraterritorial pressure on sovereign nations, including our own. Will the Minister call on the Prime Minister to meet the Lai family, listen to their story and understand what is at stake? We are concerned that Jimmy’s health is deteriorating and, as every day passes, we lose time.
If the Government are not prepared to stand by Jimmy Lai—I hope that the Minister will confirm today that they are—then the United Kingdom simply looks weak. We must be prepared to defend our British citizens, our values and our international obligations—or we look away and, by our silence, give permission to authoritarian regimes to target our people, suppress the truth and redefine the rules of the international order. The world is watching, and so is Jimmy Lai in his cell in Hong Kong—imprisoned not because he committed a crime, but because he dared to be free.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The UK is a world leader in protecting marine environments, particularly around the British Overseas Territories, but tragically that reputation will be trashed when Labour surrenders to Mauritius one of the most important marine protected areas around the British Indian Ocean Territory. While Mauritian fisheries Ministers have been pledging to issue fishing and trawler licences for those waters, Labour Ministers have given no assurances about future protections, and have just made vague comments on working with Mauritius on a new MPA. Can the Minister state if the proposed treaty will have any guaranteed protections in place? Will she confirm what was said in a legal letter to British Chagossians—that their right of return is not guaranteed? Surely that would be a total betrayal.
Catherine West
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. Following the trip that he and I did together when we were both on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am sure he is aware that the marine protected area will continue and that the environment has been at the heart of the negotiations. Indeed, he must remember that, because when he was the chair of the Chagos Islands all-party parliamentary group, he began the debate with the Mauritians, so I am sure he is in a very good position to ask any further questions that he may like to ask of the Mauritians.
Prisoners of Conscience
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I begin by extending my thanks to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. He is a tireless defender of human rights and his dedication to the cause of those who are persecuted for their beliefs, wherever they may be, is courageous, admirable and much needed. I thank him for it. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling the discussion to take place. It is a vital debate and it is only a shame that there are not more hon. Members present.
This country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has long been a sanctuary for the oppressed, and this Chamber has been a voice for the voiceless and a champion of liberty. From the days of William Wilberforce to the last Government’s establishment of a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, this House of Commons has stood up for the fundamental freedoms of speech, conscience and belief—long may that continue. I wish to speak for those who cannot speak freely themselves and who languish in prison cells, not for any crime but simply for having the courage to believe differently, to respectfully challenge authority or to follow their conscience in the face of tyranny.
We have had a short but meaningful debate, with some excellent contributions from colleagues on all sides of the House. The hon. Member for Strangford, who spoke passionately, as he always does, told us about the importance of defending those who profess their faith and uphold their convictions, and the importance of standing up for freedom. The love of freedom has always inspired me in politics. I grew up in the 1980s, when we had a Prime Minister who defended freedom around the world. Margaret Thatcher stood against totalitarianism and communism across the world, particularly in the Soviet Union. A belief in freedom and liberty drives the Conservative party. Love of country is part of that, and we have always been a nation that has stood up for the liberties and freedoms of the people of these islands.
I have great admiration for the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who is no longer in her place, and I have worked closely with her on the issue of Armenia. We recall the Armenian genocide 110 years ago. She referred to her constituent, Annette Moskofian, who I also know very well and with whom I have worked on upholding the freedom of the people of Armenia. As the hon. Lady said, Armenian prisoners who are being kept in Azerbaijani jails also need to have their freedom. Armenia needs to live as an independent, free democracy without fear, and the people must be allowed to express their views freely. Last week, I attended a wreath laying at the Cenotaph with the hon. Lady and other hon. Members from across the House in support of our friends from Armenia, which is a Christian country that simply wants to be democratic and independent and not to be threatened by an aggressive neighbour.
No one in this House could ever compete with the passion, belief and deeply held views of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). I have admired him ever since I entered the House in 2001. He speaks with enormous passion and he understands that this is a Christian country. Our laws, traditions and customs are founded on those Christian traditions. If we discard them, we discard everything we have in this country. That does not mean that we do not respect other religions, but our Christian heritage is fundamental and leads Britain to be a champion of freedom, free speech and freedom of religion and democracy around the world, as we have been for far longer than most other countries. My right hon. Friend rightly reminded us of how our own Royal Navy eroded the slave trade—it is often forgotten that it was Britain that led the way against the slave trade. I thank him for everything that he does to stand up for the rights of the oppressed, and particularly those religious minorities who are denied the right to worship and practise freely.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), spoke extremely well and raised a lot of issues that are well known throughout the House. He spoke about the Uyghurs in Xinjiang and the importance of the China audit, which we are still waiting for; it is important that we get on with that. We have a moral duty to stand up for those who have lost their freedom; Britain has a proud record of that. That transcends party politics, and I am sure that it will do so in this House today. He also mentioned those of the Baha’i faith who are persecuted, which is another very important point.
There were superb interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), who has now left his place. He spoke rightly about the balance between dealing with nations around the world: we want good relations and trade and co-operation, and we want to work with many countries economically, but equally we need to think about human rights. We need to balance those things. Equally, he spoke about imposing our values on other countries, which is always a balance. We cannot impose British values on every country of different traditions and religions, but nevertheless we should never be silent when we see an injustice. I know that certainly on the Opposition Benches—and, I am sure, on the Government Benches—as people who believe in freedom and democracy we all stand for standing up against injustice, wherever it may be in the world.
I will rightly focus on the people Members have mentioned who are wrongly detained in prisons for their religion or belief. What practical steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to monitor, identify and support such individuals? The Minister has lots of time to answer all these questions. She will need to tell us very clearly what resources are being allocated by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to monitor prisoners of conscience globally. How is that information being used in the UK’s broader human rights strategy? As a member of the Article 18 Alliance, will the Minister tell us whether the UK actively proposes names for international advocacy?
As we have already heard, the statistics are deeply alarming. According to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, more than 1,300 individuals are currently imprisoned for their beliefs in just 28 countries. That includes 532 people in communist China, 327 people in Putin’s Russia and 87 people in Iran. Other Members have mentioned other countries where similar issues need to be addressed, such as Vietnam and North Korea. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton mentioned Azerbaijan and Armenia, which I referred to earlier.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West quite rightly mentioned Venezuela. I met a delegation from Venezuela only last week, and I was an observer at a Venezuelan election some years ago. I have to say that it was not very democratic, and I do not think that much has changed since—in fact, it has got a lot worse. We should absolutely highlight that country as one in need of radical democratic change. My right hon. Friend also mentioned Egypt and Turkey.
There are many other countries that we could think of, but the point is that Britain must lead the way. We are the nation that always stands up for the rights and freedoms of peoples, and we must do so with vigour and without compromise. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have raised specific cases with the Governments of those countries and others? If so, will she tell us which ones she has been speaking to in recent days?
I am aware that this debate is centred on matters of faith. However, I, like the hon. Member for Strangford, take the opportunity to raise the case of Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai. We need to see him released, and an end to his politically motivated trial and the repeal of the draconian national security law in Hong Kong. It is one matter to speak in this place about individuals far afield who have little to no connection with these islands, but it is another matter when it involves a British national. What developments have there been on that issue so far? We talk a lot about it, but we see very little action. Given that the Government look as though they are becoming more economically aligned with China, which I think is a huge error, will Jimmy Lai’s case be front and centre in our engagements with Beijing? Has the Minister specifically called for Jimmy Lai’s release in dealings with her Chinese counterparts?
I commend the hon. Member for Strangford and all the members of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief for their laudable initiative and tireless efforts in launching a scheme that enables Members of this House to advocate for individual prisoners of conscience. That initiative represents a meaningful and compassionate step towards amplifying the voices of those who have been unjustly detained for exercising their fundamental rights. In the light of that important work, I must ask the Minister whether the FCDO is actively supporting that endeavour by assisting Members in establishing contact with relevant embassies in the United Kingdom as well as engaging with international legal and diplomatic mechanisms to strengthen advocacy on behalf of those individuals.
I am pleased that the Government heeded the call from the Opposition Benches on renewing the last Government’s position in having a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. However, can the Minister outline exactly what the special envoy is doing to advance the cause of individual prisoners of conscience? Has the envoy engaged directly with foreign Governments or institutions to press for their release? Do the Government intend to enshrine the post in law, for which my good friend the former Member for Congleton, Fiona Bruce, passionately campaigned when she served in this House until last year?
Britain has long used both aid and diplomacy to promote our values abroad. In that context, I ask the Minister whether the allocation of UK aid to recipient countries is ever made conditional on demonstrable progress in safeguarding freedom of religion or belief. Is consideration given specifically to the treatment of individuals imprisoned solely on account of their religious convictions? Is our financial assistance ever leveraged to encourage reform and accountability in such cases? Those in prison today for their beliefs, be they Christian, Ahmadiyya Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, any other religion or members of minority or non-religious communities, deserve more than just our concern: they deserve our advocacy, our voice and our unwavering defence.
Our foreign policy must reflect not only our national interests, but a projection of how we treat our own people. We must never shy away from calling out wickedness and unjust imprisonment or from defending the right to freedom of conscience. As the great John Stuart Mill, once a Member of this House, so wisely said:
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
We look forward to this Government doing something.
Persecution of Christians
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I commend the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for raising this vital issue in the House today, as we approach the most holy period in the Christian calendar, to remind us of the appalling persecution of Christians throughout the world. I will not mention every country, as so many have been mentioned today, which highlights that it is dangerous to be a Christian in parts of our planet, and we in this country must stand up against that kind of persecution and oppression.
I commend all Members who have contributed to this wonderful debate, but I draw particular attention to some of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), which were replicated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger). I am looking at the crown above the door to this Chamber. There is a cross on that crown, which tells us that our constitution, our liberties, our freedoms and our British way of life are founded on Christian values. Whichever political party we represent, it is vital that we defend those traditions.
We are here today to discuss a deep moral urgency. This is not an abstract issue; it is about the very real suffering of people—men, women and children—who are targeted, attacked, imprisoned and even murdered simply for their faith. Christians have faced oppression for centuries. At home, that persecution has found new ways of expressing itself, but abroad it is still very much the same—murder, state-sanctioned discrimination and violent oppression. Today, around the world, Christians are being oppressed on a staggering scale.
First, in the light of the Government’s efforts to begin removing sanctions against Syria and their stated desire to work with the interim Government of that country, it is imperative that we ask the Minister what assurances the UK Government have received that this new approach to Syria will not come at the expense of religious minorities. How will progress be monitored? What can be done to ensure that a codified constitution in Syria represents everybody equally, especially Christians? What discussions has the United Kingdom had with our partners in Washington and Europe to ensure that any future settlement does not come at the expense of those vulnerable communities in Syria? Crucially, what steps are the Government taking to support displaced Christian families and to ensure accountability for the reported atrocities we have been hearing so much about?
In recent months, we have observed what appears to be a growing alignment between the Government of the United Kingdom and China, a country where religious oppression has become ever more brazen. The Government have announced an audit of UK-China relations. Will Christian persecution be a key part of that audit? Have individual cases—for example, the recent arrest of Bishop Shao Zhumin, who was detained for refusing to pay a fine related to a mass that the Government of China deemed illegal—been raised at the highest levels? How are the UK Government ensuring that their diplomatic efforts with the People’s Republic of China include pressing for greater protections for religious minorities—especially, of course, for Christians?
Having read this year’s Open Doors “World Watch List” report, which many Members rightly highlighted, I am sure that I speak for all Members across the House when I say that, while we welcome its publication, its revelations are no less troubling than those of the previous year. Sadly, there seems to be very little progress. In south Asia, Christian communities continue to endure grave challenges and are under increasing social pressures. In Pakistan, blasphemy laws continue to be disproportionately weaponised against Christians, with widespread reports of abductions, forced conversions and systematic discrimination in day-to-day life. In Bangladesh, rising hostility and subtle everyday forms of persecution, particularly in rural areas, have created an environment of fear and exclusion.
What representations have the Government made to those Commonwealth countries? How is British aid being used to safeguard religious minorities and promote genuine freedom of belief? What more can the Commonwealth of Nations, as an organisation, do to promote religious freedom, and will the Minister use the Government’s influence to ensure that the Commonwealth acts where it can across Commonwealth nations in this respect?
Nigeria is another Commonwealth nation that many Members highlighted. The situation there grows more dire by the day. Christian villages are being attacked, with churches burned to the ground and priests kidnapped and executed. Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa undermine the rights of anyone who does not subscribe to their extremist ideologies. Have the Government sought assurances from the Nigerian Government on protecting Christian communities, especially in vulnerable regions of that country, and what support is being given to enhance the security and resilience of these communities against such threats?
Sir John Hayes
To be blunt, we have a lot of influence in Nigeria, so I would go as far as to say, “No trade and no aid until their Government act on this.”
Andrew Rosindell
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have to get tough with countries that behave in this way, and we have to uphold the freedoms of these people. That is part of our heritage, and we should ensure that the rest of the world receives our support where minorities are threatened and persecuted. I could go on with examples—from countries ravaged by war to those where legislative oppression cloaks persecution in legality. We could all do so, but the suffering of Christians is global and unrelenting, and our response must be equally tireless and resolute.
The last Government introduced the position of the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief: Fiona Bruce, a wonderful person whom we very much miss. I am delighted that the current Government have renewed that commitment by appointing the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), but will the Minister outline what progress has been made since the new envoy’s appointment? How is the envoy working across all Departments and with international partners to protect Christians at risk, and will the Minister enshrine the appointment as a permanent part of how we do things by making it law, as Fiona Bruce attempted, so that we always have someone who fulfils that very important role? What more can we do to support and amplify the envoy’s position to ensure it delivers meaningful change?
Let me be clear that this is not a partisan issue. It is about standing up for the fundamental right to freedom of religion. It is about defending those who are suffering simply for their faith. We cannot—we must not—remain silent. Britain has a proud history of standing up for the religiously persecuted. We must remember that if we do not defend religious freedom abroad, we weaken it at home. A world in which Christians are persecuted with impunity is a world in which faith is no longer safe. Our message today must be clear: we will not stand idly by. We will not allow the persecution of Christians to be ignored any longer.
I end with a passage from the Gospel of St Matthew that feels all too relevant today:
“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves...you will be hated by all for my name’s sake.”
Let those words remind us of our duty. The question is: what will His Majesty’s Government do to defend the freedom of religion and the rights of Christians, and to prevent, condemn and stop persecution around the world?