Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that question. We are making progress, but he is also right to point out that what we do needs to be lawful. That is the key thing, and that is what we are working on.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T6. Would the Minister for development and Africa please update the House on his recent visit to Ethiopia?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I was recently in Ethiopia, and was able to visit Tigray and the edge of the most food-insecure area, where—as the House will know—starvation and food shortage is rising alarmingly. The situation is as if a football was being kicked at a plate glass window; we have the power to alter its trajectory, but if we do not, it will smash that window. That is why Britain is setting up a pledging conference—working closely with the United Nations—and a contact group on Ethiopia. In the next financial year, we are increasing our bilateral funding very significantly.

Freedom of Religion and Belief in Nigeria

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered freedom of religion and belief in Nigeria.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting the motion. This subject is close to my heart. I visited Nigeria the year before last with the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I declare an interest as chair of that group. We speak for those with Christian belief, those with other beliefs and those with no beliefs, because we genuinely believe, as I know you do, Mr Paisley, in the love that our God has for others and the importance of reaching out across the world, where many obscene, difficult and heartbreaking things are happening, to speak up for human rights and to be a voice for the voiceless—those who have no one to speak for them. We will try to put forward that voice in this House in a constructive and positive way.

The debate was requested, and the Backbench Business Committee agreed to it, primarily because, at Christmas last year, almost 200 Christians were murdered because of their beliefs. They were attacked, murdered and abused by Fulani tribesmen. Those who were able to do so fled into the forest. Their houses and churches were destroyed and their property was taken. Those events were massive and really worrying.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing this subject to the House, and for all he does to ensure that the concerning situation of people who are persecuted and discriminated against because of their religion or beliefs is continuously highlighted in this place and in the country. Does he agree that when there are attacks like the one at Christmas in Plateau state, this Government ought to ensure that they, with others, bring immediate help and relief, and look to see how they can help with rehousing, for example, and meeting all the urgent and immediate needs of people who suffer such atrocities?

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree. We need to be effective and probably urgent in our response. We have much faith in the Minister; I am sure that when he responds, he will give us some ideas about how that can be done better.

Ever mindful of Nigeria, on which we are focusing today—I referred earlier to the attacks before Christmas, my visit to the country and some of the lessons we learnt—it is frustrating and particularly worrying that, just over a year since we visited, things are no better. When we were there, campaigning was starting. We arrived in the early hours of the morning—I think it was about midnight or1 am—and wondered, as we went from the airport to our hotel, why there were crowds. I found out the reason when we got to the hotel, because a political document had been left on a chair: all the rallies were happening in the early hours of the morning. That was when we were hoping to see some change, but I understand that the elections have been postponed. We have great concerns about that.

The influence of people from Northern Ireland is always greater than people suspect. When I was leaving Nigeria, a young man came up to me in the airport and said in a Northern Irish accent, “Hello, Jim. How are you doing?” What are the chances of speaking to somebody with a Northern Irish accent at the airport after midnight in Nigeria? He turned out to have worked in the office of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) many moons ago; he was there as part of a lobbying and information group that was working on behalf of the opposition. The chances of having the change that we, and the Nigerians, all wish for have to be considered.

I am a well-known advocate for those who cannot speak out or who try to speak out but simply cannot be heard. Today is another opportunity to highlight the desperate daily battle that people face, seemingly without anyone knowing or understanding their plight. Today I seek to again speak out and draw attention to the horrific situation that exists for too many people throughout Nigeria at present.

Violations of FORB, along with broader discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, are often particularly serious in situations of crisis, emergency and conflict, which exacerbate it. I think we can all agree that the world is in turmoil. The Bible says that there will be wars and rumours of wars. How true that is across the world at this moment, nowhere more so than throughout the African nations, particularly Nigeria. What happens in Nigeria will dictate what happens across all of Africa. With a population of almost 220 million, Nigeria is the cauldron for the rest of Africa. That middle band of Africa is awash with weapons, arms and people with evil intent. That concerns me.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to underline that point, and those stark figures illustrate it very well. Unfortunately, it seems to be the killing ground for those of an ethnic or religious minority background, particularly Christians.

[Fiona Bruce]

I spoke with a member of the Nigerian diaspora yesterday. He called what is happening, “a prolonged national nightmare of tragedy after tragedy,” as these attacks continue unabated and asked, “Who are supplying the AK47s and the rocket launchers to herders in the crisis-ridden middle belt? Who is sponsoring these wars and these crimes in Nigeria? Who are the international funders?” Is that not a question that all of us in this country should be asking, together with the international community, so that we can address this?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady again makes a very pertinent intervention, which illustrates the issue I referred to earlier. Nigeria and the middle belt of Africa are awash with weapons. We need to address those issues.

The ethnic nationalist groups fighting for greater power for ethnic Fulani people overwhelmingly target civilians with violence in northern Nigeria. In north central Nigerian, Christians represent the majority of victims of that violence. There was a recent attack, at Christmas, in which 200 Christians lost their lives. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to denounce and address such action against freedom of religion or belief, which is a basic human right. One young American lady said to me just last week that the United States has failed to address this situation—I understand that the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) was in the States for a weekend, and I am sure she heard similar remarks. Just last week, that American lady urged me to ensure that we do not fail. We are having this debate today, and we will not fail when it comes to addressing the issues—those who are here will ensure that.

I am fully aware of the limitations of our Government’s ability to control the situation in Nigeria. But by the same token, I believe that there is more that we can and must do to make changes on the ground to get help and support to those who need it most, and simply to do what is right—it is right to do these things. In addition to the recent Christmas massacre, Islamic insurgent-directed Fulani gangs killed at least 10 Christians in Taraba state—another in a catalogue of murder—while a dozen similar gunmen kidnapped over 150 people in Zamfara state, and Boko Haram killed 15 rice farmers in Borno state. It seems to never end.

Those incidents serve to further escalate tensions in a country where violence divides people and erodes trust, threatening Nigerians’ freedom of religion or belief. Historically, violence in Nigeria has fallen along ethnic or religious lines. Violence by Boko Haram, the JAS— I will not try to pronounce the full name; you might understand if I said it in an Ulster Scots accent, Mr Paisley, but I suspect that no one else will—and Islamic State in West Africa threaten the freedom of religion or belief of Nigerians. Despite statements in favour of inter-faith unity, the Nigerian Government—I say this respectfully—have generally failed to enact meaningful policy reforms and changes to address the drivers of the violence impacting on religious freedom. I remember being outraged when I first heard about Boko Haram’s actions against women and children and the trafficking of those young girls. Even today, one young girl, Leah Sharibu, is still under the control of Boko Haram.

[Fiona Bruce]

Is it not correct that Leah Sharibu is still in captivity because she refused to renounce her Christian faith? Is it not also correct that while, for example, moderate Muslims and others suffer attacks, it appears that Christians in particular are being targeted? Churches are attacked during services, as Owo church was at Pentecost last year, and there was the attack at Christmas in Plateau state. It is a tragedy that, somewhere in the world, every two hours a Christian is killed, and that more than four fifths of those are in Nigeria.

[Jim Shannon]

Again, I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and for her other contributions to this debate.

When we visited Nigeria, I remember well the stories we were told by some of the Christians who had been displaced. Those internally displaced peoples informed us that when they were being attacked, the police station was only about half a mile the other side, but while the attack was ongoing, there seemed to be no movement, unfortunately, by the police or the army to reach out and help. It is frustrating that we should have to record such incidents, where the Nigerian police and army have been unable or unwilling to respond when they should. It also annoys me that sometimes the media are silent. It is time for the media to highlight the increasing numbers of murders, atrocities, persecution and kidnappings of young people, as well as the murders of their mums, dads and grandparents.

In Nigeria, 12 northern states have adopted sharia law, even though the constitution recognises the right of freedom of religion or belief—in other words, a right to have a different religion, and not to be subject to another religion in any place. Christians, however, are charged in sharia courts, even though such courts have no jurisdiction over them according to the Nigerian constitution, and even though Christians’ evidence and their testimonies are worth half that of a Muslim. Will the Minister give us some idea of what discussions have taken place between the UK and Nigerian Governments about ensuring that sharia law, contrary to the constitution, does not take precedence over Christians and their beliefs across Nigeria?

A predominantly Muslim ethnic group, the Fulani, have also experienced significant persecution and statelessness across west Africa for several decades. As a primarily pastoralist community, the Fulani have experienced growing disenfranchisement in the country. The marginalisation stems from federal and state government preferences for developing agriculture and the livestock sector, on which the Fulani solely depend. There are other issues, especially ecological shocks from climate change and growing competition for resources. Government authorities have failed to curb the flow of weapons—the hon. Member for Congleton referred to that—or to protect pastoralists’ property from growing criminality.

We need a strong hand from the Nigerian Government, through their police and their army, to protect their people. What is the duty of our Government here, and of our Army and our Minister? It is to protect our people. I commend our Government for their stance; Nigeria and its people deserve the same.

Open Doors, a charity that I support prayerfully and practically and whose information I highly regard—others in this Chamber have the same opinion—has provided information about other religious minorities that are also being attacked and abducted by the majority groups. Followers of African traditional religions are subject to attacks and abductions in their hundreds—not just ones, twos, tens and twenties, but hundreds. Muslims who do not partake in militant attacks are also vulnerable to attack, because they do not participate.

When we were in Nigeria, we made the case clearly. We met many people of the Muslim faith who told us that they were as absolutely disgusted at what was happening against Christians as we were. We have to divorce those who are involved in terrorist campaigns from ordinary people who have a different faith but do not try to push it on to others.

In the north-west and north-central states, many Muslims have been killed, abducted or forced to flee their villages. Ethnic Shi’ites are banned in Nigeria—again, they deserve to have their faith and to worship their God in the way they wish—and it concerns me when I hear of such things happening.

The Government response to extreme violence against civilians has been insufficient to meet their obligations to ensure security and justice for victims. In the north-east, communities have alleged that Government security forces deliberately avoid responding to warnings of violence until after attacks have taken place. Even when they do respond, Christian civilians have reported that they respond with stronger force to alerts about impending violence against Muslim communities than to violence against Christian communities. That institutional bias must be addressed, as the hon. Member for Congleton said. It is clear that what people told me on my visit to Nigeria happens regularly, which is concerning, so I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.

Due to the lack of a federal response, some state and local officials have called for civilians to take up arms and defend themselves. Although they do that with good intent—there is good reason to do it—the result is the militarisation of identity groups and an increase in the human rights abuses associated with poorly trained vigilante groups with little to no accountability, so that is not the best way of doing things. It is only right that there is Government enforcement; it is not up to individuals, paramilitary groups or church groups to carry out such actions, but they continue in the southern part of Nigeria.

What worries me is that a conflict that started in the north-east of Nigeria has moved into the centre, and is now moving south. In the south, the Igbo, a largely Christian ethnic group, have issues with political representation, given that the country’s quota system for state revenue distribution privileges the comparatively more populous north and south-west of the country. At the same time, more political, religious and human rights groups are the target of violence. It worries me that the Igbo, the largest ethnic group in the south, are being disadvantaged because they happen to be Christians. No group should be displaced or prevented from accessing aid, grants and advice for that reason.

[Fiona Bruce]

Several years ago, when I was in Nigeria, the UK Government sent some of our military personnel to work with the Nigerian security forces to address the issues causing the attacks by Boko Haram, but that did not stop them; indeed, as the hon. Gentleman said, the attacks have increased way beyond the northern part of Nigeria and now take place in the middle and even southern areas. What more can we do to assist the security forces? Working with others from the international community to do so is urgent.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for those words. We have a fantastic and incredibly important relationship with Nigeria; there are rich cultural, historical, economic and family connections between our two countries. When I was in Nigeria, I had the opportunity to speak to the British consulate, and the attaché, who was at some of those meetings, indicated that the United Kingdom Government were working closely with the Nigerian Government, but perhaps we have not seen enough of what could be done in a more tactical and advantageous way. One of the things we were told was that Nigeria was keen to have more helicopter support. The Minister is here to report from a human rights and religious point of view, but he has seen long and gallant service in the Army over many years, and he will understand the issue very clearly. I think we could do more, from a Ministry of Defence and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office point of view, to help the Nigerian army to take on the terrorist groups.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Member is being very generous to me in allowing interventions—I appreciate it greatly. I join him in acknowledging the Minister’s experience with regard to military matters. Is it not correct to say that it would not be simply an altruistic act for the UK to get involved in ensuring greater peace and security in Nigeria? It is also in all our interests, as it is in the world’s interest, because if young people in that huge country—Nigeria’s population is composed largely of young people—become disillusioned and disenchanted with their home country and seek to emigrate elsewhere across the world, denuding Nigeria of its young people and the skills they could be trained in, that would be an absolute tragedy for international peace and security, not just security in Nigeria.

[Jim Shannon]

Again, I thank the hon. Lady for the intervention. In my introduction, I mentioned the fact that Nigeria has almost 220 million people, and it is clearly the cauldron for what happens in the whole of Africa—what happens in Nigeria will indicate what happens elsewhere. So the hon. Lady is right to re-emphasise the importance of dealing with terrorism and atrocities and dealing fairly and equitably with each and every person, of whatever faith, in Nigeria. Ensuring that their human rights are respected, that the aid gets to them and that they are secure, happy and safe in their homes is so important, because if that fails in Nigeria—this is what the hon. Lady is reminding us of—it fails for all of Africa. That is why this debate is so important and, as the hon. Lady said, so critical.

To refer back to the Igbo people in the south, armed separatists defending Igbo interests target Muslim civilians, based on ethnic or religious identity, and have also attacked individuals of various faiths travelling to worship and to celebrate holidays in the region. The FORB violations in Nigeria impact everyone in Nigeria; that is where we are—everybody is affected. What happens for the Christians will have an effect elsewhere. What happens with the Muslims will have an effect elsewhere as well.

In terms of FORB, even the judiciary are an area of concern—I have to underline this issue. In the past year, a sharia court sentenced Sheikh Abduljabbar Kabara to death for blasphemy, which is contrary to the constitution of Nigeria, as a sharia court should not have the power to do so. Other judicial authorities sentenced humanist leader Mubarak Bala to 24 years in prison for blasphemy and other charges. Mubarak Bala has been incarcerated since 28 April 2020. We used our visit to speak to some of the judiciary and judges in Nigeria and to make a case. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) will speak today for the Scots Nats. His hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) was in that delegation and made a very good case for the release of Mubarak. We thought we had made some headway on that, and the indications coming from the judiciary seemed to say that, but he is still in prison. I understand that he was given an option to leave the country, and his wife and child deserve to be able to be reunited with him, wherever that may be, in freedom. I said at the beginning of the debate that I speak up for those with a Christian faith, those with other faiths and those with no faith, and I mean that. The other members of the APPG mean it as well, and I think everyone in this room also means it. It is important to say that.

Additionally, a high court in Nigeria ruled that the blasphemy laws in the sharia penal codes are constitutional. In September, armed officers conducted a surprise raid on the presiding judge of the Kano court of appeal, who was the only judge who dissented from the ruling. Is there undue influence from the police and army on the judiciary? The question has to be asked. How impartial can those decisions be?

The Nigerian Government have failed to address the drivers of this violence and to prioritise justice for its victims. We must take action to address the systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of religious freedom and human rights. The failures are clear. The Minister and his officials must think that I believe they have a magic wand. If only we all had a magic wand, imagine what we could do to fix things. I do not think they do have a magic wand, but I do think we can use our influence economically, culturally, historically and through families, because of the rich bond that is shared between Nigeria and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I know that there are limitations, but I do not believe that we are on the cusp of the limits; I believe that there is more engagement that can and should take place. When the Minister responds and tells us what has been done by the United Kingdom Government, I would be glad to hear that we are heading in a positive direction.

I believe that more on-the-ground missionaries could get involved. I have many in my constituency; in almost every church there are missionaries with contacts across the world, including in Kenya, Uganda, Egypt, Nigeria—in large numbers—Swaziland and South Africa. I make that point because there is a non-governmental workforce that could be used as part of the Government network. I have suggested before that missionary groups are there for one purpose: not to be political or to change the direction or focus of the Government, but to help people. I think they could be part of the network that we have in the UK. I know that there may be a sense of, “What else can we be asking for?” when Members see my name next to a debate, but lives are in the balance. There are people in Nigeria who I will never meet in this world, but hopefully we will meet in the next. The innocence of children is at stake, and I believe we have more to give.

When I used to get tired at home and feel like there was nothing left to give, I would recall a biblical verse that my mum ingrained in me. I mentioned in the main Chamber yesterday that my mum got me a bank account when I was 16 and got me my pension when I was 18. She is a lady of great influence. She is the same height as the hon. Member for Congleton—about 5 feet 6 inches— and I am over 6 feet. I get the height from my dad, not my mum. My mum ingrained in me a thought that comes to mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is, as ever, a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley, and to serve under your chairmanship. I genuinely and most sincerely thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate. The reality is that if there is any debate on freedom of religion or belief, you can bet your bottom dollar that the hon. Members for Strangford and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) will be tag-teaming. I do not say that to be flippant; I say it in genuine appreciation of the fact that they have really put their passion into this issue. Arguably, they are using their gifts to advocate in this place, as the hon. Member for Strangford says, for people who cannot speak for themselves.

I welcome the opportunity to focus specifically on Nigeria. Like the hon. Member for Congleton, I put on record my concern about the plight of Leah Sharibu. I have done some work with Christian Solidarity Worldwide in advocating for her over the years. This is not something I take great pleasure in, but every year we go to the Nigerian embassy in London on Leah’s birthday, which happens to coincide with mine. There is no way that we want to be marking these birthdays while she is being held in captivity. I thank the hon. Lady for putting Leah’s case on the record again.

Nigeria is characterised by its tapestry of rich religious, ethnic and cultural diversity and is home to almost 103 million Christians, but its once celebrated diversity has in recent times been marred by accounts of persecution, discrimination and human rights violations. As the hon. the Member for Strangford pointed out, Christians are confronted with a brutal reality for practising their invaluable human right of religious freedom, particularly in the Muslim-majority north of the country. Instances of mob killings, forced conversion to Islam, violence, extremism, kidnappings and targeted attacks on Christians have tragically become commonplace. Houses of worship, schools and communities have become battlegrounds, leading to devastation and destruction.

All the while, various arms and tiers of the Government have displayed sheer complacency and inaction in securing the very basic safety of Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria. That slow, unsustainable and unyielding reaction emboldens extremist groups such as Boko Haram and Fulani militants to wage insurgencies on defenceless Christian communities in northern and middle-belt regions.

As our Christian brothers and sisters find themselves caught in the crossfire of ethnic and religious tensions, extremist ideologies, religious polarisation and conflicts have cultivated a climate of fear and insecurity, forcing many to flee their homes and abandon places of worship and communities that they have held dear for generations. It is crucial for us to acknowledge the suffering of our fellow Christians, work collectively to address those injustices, and, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, speak out for those who cannot speak.

As the hon. the Member for Strangford highlighted, the recent launch of the Open Doors 2024 world watch list sees Nigeria ranking sixth against the shocking backdrop of more Christians being killed in Nigeria than everywhere else in the world combined. This year’s research highlights that the hostility that Christians face has intensified; 90% of 4,998 Christians killed in 2023 were Nigerian.

Following a devastating year for Christians, many were looking forward to a peaceful Christmas celebration with loved ones as we celebrated the birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but instead they found themselves brutalised once again. I wholeheartedly echo Members’ condemnation of the abhorrent massacre of civilians that took place on Christmas eve 2023 at the hands of Fulani Islamic extremists.

The Nigerian Government’s failure to protect Christians during the most holy period resulted in 295 Christians being killed, more than 1,500 homes burned, eight churches burned, and 30,000 people displaced, according to Barnabas Aid. Those horrendous acts of persecution not only violate the fundamental right to freedom of religion enshrined in article 18 of the UN declaration of human rights, but undermine the fabric of our society if we simply turn a blind eye to such injustice.

“Come to our rescue” and “We cannot even mourn in peace” are just a couple of the calls for peace written on posters held by mourning peace marchers in the wake of the deadly attack. It is incumbent on us while we are here in Parliament to continue to demand that those unprovoked attacks stop and that the peace marchers’ calls are not brushed to the sidelines.

I commend the work of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which I referenced earlier, in collecting the personal testimonies of those murdered, the survivors who managed to escape the carnage of the attacks, and many others. The stories paint a poignant reminder that while we debate here today in the Palace of Westminster, 365 million Christians worldwide face persecution for simply having the temerity to follow the teachings of Christ. That is why the UK Government must ensure that there are safe and legal routes for refugees fleeing to the UK due to religious persecution and human rights concerns instead of criminalising them.

I cannot let this morning go by without acknowledging the frankly grotesque scenes last night of the Prime Minister placing a bet on live national television with what can only be described as a questionable journalist, making light of the plight of refugees and bargaining cash on whether they can be deported to Rwanda. The very people that we have turned up to discuss in this place—people fleeing religious persecution—could be the types of people put on the planes subject to a bet by the Prime Minister. I do not make any apology for calling that out, because I would do so if it were somebody in my own party.

Listening to the hon. Member for Strangford outline the complex array of challenges faced by Nigeria, from security threats from extremists to farmer and herder conflicts, solidifies why I believe the British Government must reinstate its international obligation to spend 0.7% of the UK’s GNI on official development assistance. I will be frank: if the UK can afford to find money—roughly £1 million a go—to launch arms into the Red sea, surely we can also find money for development. It is concerning that the UK Government are reducing official development aid to Nigeria by 19.85% for 2023-24 in the face of a blatant rise in violence against Christians and religious minorities. Given everything that I have outlined, there is no doubt that the relationship with Nigeria is complex, but the decision to reduce ODA, which is targeted at some of the most vulnerable people, must be revisited.

Despite their constrained resources, my colleagues in Holyrood, the Scottish Government, are supporting projects to tackle the effects of climate change, such as religious hostilities over resources in northern Nigeria, for example through a £3 million climate justice fund—all while, I say humbly to the Minister, the Government continually refuse to recognise their role in protecting religious minorities and freedom of religion across the world. A lot of good work was done under the previous Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). However, notwithstanding the wonderful work done by the hon. Member for Congleton, I am concerned that the focus of the Government at Foreign Secretary level could be better on that front.

[Fiona Bruce]

I am listening very carefully to everything the hon. Gentleman is saying. I know that he feels very sincerely about the issue of freedom of religion or belief and the persecuted across the world. However, I do not think it would be out of turn to put on record that I have had a conversation about this very issue with the Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, and I believe that he personally shares our concerns about those who are persecuted or discriminated against because of their religion or beliefs across the world. It is a priority for him.

[David Linden]

I am genuinely not seeking to quarrel or have a debate about that. If that is the case, I am very glad to hear it. The only thing I will say is that I would like to see His Majesty’s Government implement that view across all Departments. Certainly, as an MP who does quite a lot of Home Office casework, I find that there are far too many occasions when my constituents who are seeking refuge or asylum in the UK based on religious persecution are put through the most intolerable hoops. So that is a view I would like to see shared a bit more across Government.

With all that in mind, let us not remain silent spectators of the suffering of our fellow Christians. Let us work towards fostering a society where religious freedom is not simply a principle that we debate in this place, but a lived reality for Nigerians, and indeed every person of faith, or no faith at all, across this land.

Again, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for giving us the opportunity to allow the Minister, and indeed this House, to refocus on the plight of religious freedom.

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate. He is, as ever, a devoted campaigner for freedom of religion or belief around the world, and I sincerely thank him for that. I am grateful to him for recognising the complexities of the situation, including the marginalisation of Fulani communities, the role of climate change and the need to tackle the flow of weapons. We need to collectively consider all those issues. I also agree that our influence rightly has limits, but I believe that there is more we can do within our partnership with Nigeria, and I will address that in my speech.

As we know, Nigeria is a country of rich diversity, with more than 500 languages, over 300 ethnic groups and a massive range of different churches and branches of Islam. Our connection with Nigeria benefits enormously from our diaspora communities, which, as we know, include British Nigerians of all faiths and backgrounds. It is right to say that at the beginning of my speech, because it provides the context for where we want to go. However, against that background of co-existence and flourishing diversity, there have been many appalling violations of freedom of religion and belief. They include attacks on Christian communities, priests and churches. We must continue to remember the utterly horrifying attack on St Francis Xavier Church in Ondo state two years back, when 41 innocent worshippers were murdered during the Pentecost mass. We continue to stand with the survivors and with that devastated community. I ask the Minister how the Government are engaging with the Nigerian authorities to help ensure justice for that attack, because it must not be forgotten.

The hon. Member rightly highlighted the terrible killings in Plateau state in December. Amnesty International Nigeria reports that over 140 people were killed across 20 villages in just 48 hours. That is truly appalling. Others reported that several churches were burned alongside many homes, and there is speculation that the attacks were a form of indiscriminate reprisal by local herders for cattle rustling and village burnings that had started the previous day. The scale of it is simply horrifying. Is the Minister aware of any progress following the Government’s engagement with the authorities on this issue? We should not rely on speculation. There is a genuine need for a full and impartial investigation of those attacks, and we must see action to prevent those horrors from being repeated, as they have been in recent years.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Is it not right that unless endeavours are made to bring to account those involved in such atrocities, impunity is fostered, and that means more attacks can occur?

[Ms Brown]

I agree with the hon. Lady, as I often do. It is about ensuring that there is no impunity for attacks of that nature. It only fosters, as she rightly says, impunity for future actions.

As we know, there is also a huge continuing threat from jihadist terrorist groups, such as Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province, and we must continue to support Nigeria in its fight against those groups. Terrible violence and insecurity in large parts of Nigeria continue to affect millions of Nigerian people of all faiths. I hope that we can agree here today that narratives about religious wars are not accurate, because I honestly worry that that kind of narrative risks making the situation even worse.

I would like to draw hon. Members’ attention to the perspective of Archbishop Ndagoso, of the Catholic archdiocese of Kaduna in north-west Nigeria. He said:

“In the northwest the farmers are mostly Muslims, and they also have conflicts with the Fulani. As you move to the middle belt, it is inhabited mostly by Christians, so there it will most likely be a Christian farm. Religion and ethnicity are very sensitive problems in Nigeria, they are always used for convenience, but primarily this conflict is not religious, I am absolutely sure.”

The archbishop went on to say that opportunists

“use these factors to their own advantage, but if you go to the root, you discover it is little or nothing to do with religion.”

The archbishop, like many in Nigeria, is absolutely focused on the desperate insecurity affecting his parishioners. In the same interview, he was understandably very critical of the Nigerian Government and of us in the west. He was, rightly, very clear about the many forms of legal and administrative discrimination that Christian organisations face in his state, and others in northern Nigeria. His is an expert perspective that we should consider.

In 2022, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project found that while, as we know, attacks on Christians had significantly increased, only 5% of the attacks on civilians were specifically targeting Christians based on the fact that they were Christians. However, I know that we in this Chamber will agree that even a 5% increase is far too great.

It is a simple fact that the extremist groups exploiting and victimising large areas of Nigeria kill and destroy the livelihoods of Christian and Muslim communities alike. We must call out targeted attacks against Christians, and we need a holistic approach to insecurity. We need to provide solidarity with all communities, because Nigerian communities of all faiths and ethnicities depend on the Nigerian state; and where there are failures, we need to support our Nigerian friends in addressing them.

When communities do not have access to state services, including access to justice that resolves and redresses grievances, it fuels vigilantes, bandits and revenge attacks. It creates a sense of abandonment and discrimination, which is fertile ground for the recruitment narratives of terrorists. When young people have no decent access to jobs, and families are without education for their children or food to keep them from going hungry, there is a push towards alternative economic models, such as crime. It is the same the world over, but in Nigeria, that might include kidnapping for ransom, livestock rustling, or, appallingly, even recruitment into the terrorist groups that continue to wreak such utter carnage on innocent communities.

I know that some colleagues may disagree, but many experts and international organisations are clear that climate change plays a role in this conflict. The African Union, the International Crisis Group, the World Bank and others believe that to be true. When grazing land becomes scarce, it drives herders to migrate. They, in turn, push into settled communities, and atrocities can result. We see similar stories happening right across the Sahel and beyond—from Mali to the Lake Chad basin, from South Sudan to north-west Kenya. Those conflicts are, sadly, nothing new, but they have become more and more intense.

[Fiona Bruce]

I do not think any of us deny that climate change is one of the causes of the sad situation that we are discussing, but one of the problems is that extremist groups are hijacking the issue and fuelling the violence. As we have said, they bring in arms and other materials to do that. Those groups have their own extremist agenda, and they are taking advantage of all those involved who are struggling, often at subsistence level, in Nigeria. The international community needs to address this issue with greater alertness and urgency.

[Ms Brown]

I agree. The impact of a changing climate is not a simple issue of cause and effect; it is about poverty and destitution.

I can understand the anxiety about states in Nigeria continuing to imprison people for exercising religious freedoms. We all know the case of Mubarak Bala—we have spoken about that in this place, with the same audience—but there are others imprisoned in Nigeria on blasphemy charges. We cannot just respond to insecurity and terrorism by calling out individual human rights abuses. We need to provide practical support to prevent further atrocities. Regardless of whether religious motivations have helped to cause an attack, I believe that we can absolutely support religious organisations to provide solutions.

I hope that the Minister will tell us much more today about how the Government are engaging with all communities of faith in Nigeria to support peace building; how we are encouraging interfaith work that creates trust and understanding; and how we are engaging with religious leaders to support their communities to adapt to more climate-resilient methods of agriculture and ways of living. How are we supporting the early warning systems and civil society networks that can help communities to de-escalate when a conflict becomes likely? How can we support the programmes of the federal Government or individual states that would aid that agenda? Are we offering support to the efforts of Nigeria and the Economic Community of West African States in tackling the spread of weapons, which make these conflicts so appallingly deadly?

I hope colleagues will forgive me if I finish on a much more positive note. In much of Nigeria, people of different faiths and none are living side by side in peace. That is utterly normal, and it simply goes without saying. Interfaith marriages are common. We should not lose sight of this. I worry that an image of Nigeria is emerging that is scarcely recognisable to many Nigerians, because it does not reflect the dynamism, the inter-mixing, the excitement, energy and opportunity of Nigeria today. I believe that to support protections for all Nigerians, including those of freedom of religion or belief, we need to engage with those opportunities, deepening our partnership with Nigeria for our mutual benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman is correct: the constitutional obligation of the Nigerian Government is to ensure, at federal level and state level, that Nigerians are free to practise their religion. Through our high commissioner, we continue to make that case to our partners in Nigeria, for the settled benefit of constitutional affairs and religious freedom in the country.

[Fiona Bruce]

I am very pleased to hear the Minister speak about the high commission raising cases. Will he ask UK diplomats in Nigeria to raise, in particular, the case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, the 19-year-old Sufi Muslim who wrote a song that he sent to a friend on WhatsApp, which the friend then circulated. As a result, Yahaya was arrested in Kano state, charged and there was a court hearing. He had no legal representation and because he was found guilty of blasphemy, he was sentenced to death by hanging.

Fortunately, Yahaya’s case came to the attention of members of the international community who are concerned about freedom of religion or belief and a lawyer has now been found for him. I met that young lawyer twice in the last year, but the fact is, unfortunately, that when an appeal was made to the Court of Appeal, Yahaya lost. The case is now going to the Supreme Court in Nigeria. This is a very important case, because blasphemy should not be an offence and it certainly should not be subject to the death penalty. Will the Minister ask our representatives in Nigeria to advocate on Yahaya’s behalf as he awaits the date for the Supreme Court hearing?

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case, which is one of gravity and importance. I will ask the Minister for Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, to write with an update on the representations that we are making through our high commissioner in Abuja.

The UK Government are committed to supporting Nigeria to end faith-based persecution and violence, and to uphold its constitutional commitment to religious freedom for all, as we have discussed. This is a long-standing priority in our partnership with Nigeria. The British high commissioner and his team in Nigeria work closely with local authorities, communities and faith leaders to address these issues, which include wider inter-communal violence and insecurity that exacerbate the threats to religious groups. Some of those trends have been discussed very usefully this morning.

We regularly raise these issues at the highest level. Last July, the British high commissioner raised the report by the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief, which was entitled, “Nigeria: Unfolding Genocide? Three Years On”, with the Nigerian President’s chief of staff. In August 2023, the former Foreign Secretary discussed insecurity with President Tinubu and the Nigerian national security adviser. Most recently, the British high commissioner has raised the attacks in Plateau state with the national security adviser and discussed solutions to intercommunal conflict and insecurity.

In all those meetings, we have reiterated the need to uphold the security of all communities affected by violence and to bring perpetrators to justice. We continue to underline our commitment to supporting the Nigerian Government in tackling these persistent security issues.

Meanwhile, we are working to advance freedom of religion or belief through our work on the world stage. I am very pleased that the Prime Minister’s special envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, is here today; she remains closely involved in the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, a network of countries including the UK that are dedicated to protecting and promoting freedom of religion or belief for all.

The United Nations Human Rights Council undertook its universal periodic review of Nigeria last month. The UK Government were an active participant in that process, and we remain committed to protecting all human rights, including freedom of religion or belief. It is important to recognise the complex factors that increase insecurity between communities, which have been laid out in this morning’s passionate debate. Religious belief is one such factor; others include economic disenfranchisement, historical grievances and natural resources.

We should remember that this insecurity in Nigeria is deadly both for Christians and for Muslims. We should also remember that intercommunal violence and criminal banditry are a significant factor causing a rising death toll and therefore increasing tensions between communities across Nigeria. These grievances are very easily tied to a community’s religious or ethnic identities, which are of course closely associated in Nigeria; conflicts can therefore take on a religious dimension as tensions build between communities and reprisal attacks take place. I am very grateful to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), for elegantly laying out the complex set of factors that often escalate economic or geographic conflicts into conflicts of a religious nature.

The hon. Members for West Ham and for Strangford asked about our support more broadly. The UK is supporting peace and resilience in Nigeria through a new £38 million programme that aims to tackle the interlinked causes of intercommunal conflict, including security, justice and natural resource management challenges. That is even more important in the context of climate change and grave water shortage: it will help farmers to access and collect water more efficiently and to provide better routes for livestock. Together, we expect that our support will help 1.5 million women and men to benefit from reduced violence in their communities and will help 300,000 people to better adapt to the increasingly pernicious effects of climate change.

The FCDO has also funded peace-building projects in Kaduna, Plateau, Niger and Benue states that aim to promote tolerance and understanding between communities affected by intercommunal violence. Those projects have included work to train peace ambassadors, including faith leaders, to engage with young people—the vast majority of the population, as was raised in the debate—who are at risk of becoming radicalised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

I really appreciate the Minister taking these interventions. Will he refer to the high commission the atrocity that took place at Owo on Pentecost well over a year ago? Aid to the Church in Need, one of the excellent NGOs to which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will no doubt refer, has repeatedly asked for help for those who suffered as a result of that atrocity. On Red Wednesday, I brought Margaret Attah and her husband Dominic to the House. She lost an eye and two legs in that attack. Aid to the Church in Need and other Church representatives are asking for help for those who were injured in that attack. I agree that strategic structural help is important in peace building —when I was out there, I met some of the young women who are being worked with in order to engage with local communities—but there is also a need to give immediate support to those who suffer such atrocities.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady has made numerous substantial and detailed interventions— I have lost count now. I think the House would have benefited from a speech from her, as opposed to a series of interventions; I encourage her to bring us a speech next time because of her detailed knowledge of what she is presenting to the House.

International Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 26th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I declare an obvious interest: I am the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. However, the purpose of the Bill is for the sake of my successors, to ensure that the role and office is placed on a statutory footing. Why? One reason is that the landmark Truro review by the noble Lord Bishop of Winchester, previously the Bishop of Truro, recommended that it should happen. The Truro review was initiated by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), and I thank him for his support for my work and this Bill. I also thank the current Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, for his support for the Bill, and in particular the Minister of State present today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), for coming to respond to this debate and for his support for my role.

In 2019 the noble Lord Bishop, then of Truro, was asked to review what more the then Foreign and Commonwealth Office could do to address the persecution of Christians around the world. The Truro review made practical recommendations for an enhanced response to the plight of persecuted Christians. I emphasise that those recommendations also covered people persecuted for holding other religions or beliefs, or no religious beliefs at all, as does my envoy role.

In particular, recommendation 6 was to specifically establish

“permanently, and in perpetuity, the role of Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief with appropriate resources and authority to work across FCO departments”.

That recommendation, along with the other 21 recom-mendations, was fully accepted by the Government, not least because it was—and remains—this Government’s manifesto commitment to fully implement the Truro review. It was endorsed by the Prime Minister just last October, and I am pleased that it is supported on a cross-party basis by Members from every party in this House and across civil society. I am also very pleased to see the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who will be responding to the debate on behalf of the Opposition, because she too has supported the work of the role of special envoy on many occasions.

The independent review of the progress made in implementing the Truro review’s recommendations, which took place in 2022—three years into the implementation of the Truro review, which was published in 2019—stated that recommendation 6

“appears to contemplate a permanent Special Envoy position established by law rather than appointed by the Prime Minister… The establishment of such a permanent position has not occurred, and so ‘no substantial action has been taken, to date’ with respect to delivering this aspect of the Recommendation.”

I am honoured to be the special envoy, but I am very conscious that I hold that office at the discretion of the Prime Minister of the day. It has been my privilege to serve under three Prime Ministers, but there is no guarantee that such an appointment will be made under any future Prime Minister.

The Bill is an important measure to solidify the position and work of the special envoy. I am humbled to say that the role has acquired leading international standing, not just through my work but also that of my predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and Lord Ahmad—the first envoy, who has supported the Bill strongly and publicly. He made that clear at the launch two weeks ago of the latest Open Doors world watch list, a gathering of almost 100 Members of Parliament. By making the role statutory, the Bill would remove any risk of the envoy’s role being at the whim or interest of any future Prime Minister, whatever their political colour.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The House should pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her sterling and dedicated work over many years. Although she is talking about the mechanics of why her job is necessary, I hope that she will say a few words about what is actually going on in the world and the appalling religiously motivated attacks. In Nigeria’s Benue state there were 119 attacks in 2023 alone, and 400 people were killed. In neighbouring Plateau state, 300 people were killed. The world seems to be ignoring these massacres. Black lives matter everywhere. They matter in Nigeria and everywhere, and we should talk much more about this, but that is not the fault of my hon. Friend, who has done so much in this field.

[Fiona Bruce]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I might come on to discuss how important it is to challenge the perception that this is somehow a niche interest, perhaps for those who have strong religious beliefs. It cannot become a niche interest, because hundreds of millions of men, women and children around the world suffer persecution and discrimination, whether under the hard arm of authoritarian regimes or at the ruthless whim of militant mobs, and they need not just our voices but our partnership; not just our words, but our actions; and not just our good will, but our good deeds. The Bill will help in the long term to support those actions and good deeds, which we need to take in partnership with others across the world.

Today we have an opportunity to deliver the sixth recommendation of the Truro review, and the recom-mendation of the experts who provided an independent review three years later. The Bill will provide in law the authority and permanence that is consistent with the significance of the issue internationally—exactly the point my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has just made. If there is insufficient time to speak at length about the many atrocities being perpetrated across the world as we speak, I urge those listening to the debate to read the Hansard report of yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on religious persecution and the Open Doors world watch list 2024. That is one of many debates that we have hosted in the House.

I want to pay tribute to parliamentarians across the parties, because my work internationally shows that we are unique in this country in having such strong cross-party collaboration on this issue. There is no other Parliament in the world with so many parliamentarians who regards this as a critical issue, and who actively engage. The fact that there are about 170 members of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief—the biggest APPG in Parliament, I believe—is testament to that.

Enacting this Bill would, as I have said, provide in law the authority that is consistent with the importance of this issue and the leading global role that the UK plays, including through its Ministers—I know that the Minister of State who is present today is passionate about this issue—in championing that foundational human right. As we have recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights, drawn up after the atrocities of the holocaust, and as we approach Holocaust Memorial Day tomorrow, what more fitting way could there be to demonstrate our commitment to article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights than to pass this Bill? Article 18 states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Passing the Bill would show that we are serious about advocating that fundamental human right for the long term.

Regrettably, too many Governments view FORB merely as a topic of niche interest, to be engaged in by a few of us with a particularly religious perspective on life. But FORB is not a niche topic and that perception has to change. We live in an increasingly unstable world in which there are increasingly authoritarian regimes. Religious belief is anathema to any authoritarian regime, as they demand undivided loyalty. We can promote change today by supporting the Bill. Indeed, FORB concerns should be core concerns at every international summit, because they are at the core of so many violations of human rights across the world today.

FORB is a foundational human right, and I give the example of women in Iran who bravely lead the charge against that brutal regime. Journalists and politicians alike have not fully grasped the fact that, at heart, their protests are about FORB violations. The imposition of religious dress codes is a FORB issue. It is FORB that the Iranian regime fears most, because FORB represents an existential threat for it. With angry crowds shouting, “Woman, Life, Freedom”, it is the full realisation and actualisation of freedom of religion or belief that will ensure not just respect for women, but for all of society. On that issue hangs the future of Iran.

We have become accustomed to countries paying lip service to FORB rights and obligations, and signing up to international agreements such as article 18 without honouring the obligations within them. It is simply not acceptable for a young girl to be kidnapped from her home and forcibly so-called married by being raped multiple times, and then when she goes to a police station or tries to get justice through the courts, to be turned away in a country that has signed up to article 18, with all of that happening simply because of her religious beliefs.

Without the freedom to believe or not to believe, it is hard to see how other human rights can make sense. Freedom of speech, assembly, movement and expression, and the right to equality before the law, to education, to privacy, to family life and to marriage—all those things and more are predicated and contingent on the right to thought, conscience and religion. Citizens cannot be truly free if they are not able to live according to their beliefs. Without the existence and expression of what has long been considered a sacred inner liberty, those other external rights lack grounding and legitimacy. Political social and economic freedoms cannot co-exist alongside major limitations on freedom of religion or belief. Freedom of religion or belief can exist without democracy, but it is hard to see how democracy can exist without freedom of religion or belief. That is why this work and this Bill are so important.

So why not support the Bill? The independent Truro review pointed out that the creation of the envoy role in statute

“would be unprecedented, as no special envoy position in the UK has thus far been established by law.”

Yet the argument about precedent is that it always takes a precedent being made the first time for good reason to create a long-standing precedent. There is good reason to do so here, as I hope I am stating. In reality, the unprecedented level of persecution across the world on account of what people believe, which is affecting hundreds of millions across swathes of religions and beliefs, makes the Bill so important. That was at the heart of the Truro review.

After he embarked on the review four years ago, the Bishop of Winchester stated that he was “shocked” by the scale, scope and severity of the abuse of FORB globally. The Pew Research Centre estimates that 83% of the world’s population lives in countries where there are some restrictions on religion or belief. A Christian is killed every two hours somewhere in the world, simply on account of their belief. The Open Doors world watch list 2024 sets out an increase again in the number of Christians persecuted—up to 365 million, which is one in seven across the world. As I have said, the issue does not just affect Christians but people of all faiths and beliefs.

I know that a number of colleagues wish to speak, but I turn briefly to pressing concerns about the violation of FORB. If we wanted to look at an example of why the precedent of a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief in this country is so important, we need only look over the Atlantic to be inspired by the United States’ International Religious Freedom Act, which permanently established the equivalent role of an ambassador-at-large for religious freedom and an office to support the role some 25 years ago.

In my role, I have had the privilege over the last three years to work closely, weekly and in some cases daily, with the US State Department. From 2022 to 2023, I was chair of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, which is a growing alliance that now has 43 counties committed to working together, and following the end of my term, I am honoured to have been elected as vice chair. Having worked with the US State Department, I have seen its capacity, experience and knowledge, which has come only as a result of having an established office over many years, and its effective work to support international collaboration on the issue of freedom of religion or belief.

I will not speak for much longer, as I sense a number of colleagues wish to contribute. Marc Sidwell, the director of the Henry Jackson Society, wrote recently:

“To build on all that has been achieved, the Government should act decisively, follow the recommendation of the Truro Report and make championing international religious freedom an official duty of Whitehall, embedded in legislation. The law which brought similar reforms to the US Government, the International Religious Freedom Act, is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year, and shows the enduring value of such a commitment…

As America learned during the Cold War, the defence of religious freedom abroad is not just a humanitarian priority but a key component of standing up for the values of the free and democratic world. An increasing body of research shows that the price of religious repression is measured not just in human suffering, vast and appalling as that toll remains, but in the growth of intolerant, dangerous ideologies, as well as economic immiseration.

The global decline in religious freedom is both a humanitarian and a strategic crisis. By taking religious freedom seriously, we can see emerging threats more clearly, and understand better how to act against them.”

Professor Malcolm Evans was one of the independent reviewers of the Truro review, and he is a member of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office advisory group on human rights. I urge the Minister to look at convening a meeting of that advisory group soon. He attended a parliamentary event in this place last October on the publication of the report I just quoted from. He is an expert in this field—a professor who has worked for decades on the subject. He said:

“In particular, the establishment of the Office of the Special Envoy has been a real driver of, and catalyst, for change. What is needed is for that Office to have legislative grounding to ensure that this continues, that it has a more clearly defined position and that its impact continues to grow. This will also mean that the lens of freedom of religion or belief is used when engaging with foreign policy more generally: after all, a duty is a duty—and something that Government understands. Making it so will help support the development of detailed, focussed and clearly articulated policies and strategies which will complement, take up and lend further substance to what is already now in place.”

We need to secure the groundwork already in place here in the UK to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief. We need to build on the firm foundation that many here have laid. We must not risk slipping back. I ask colleagues to support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

Thank you; I will be very brief. I thank all colleagues across the House for their support for this Bill and their kind remarks and, in particular, the Minister of State for giving up his time to come to the House to confirm the Government’s support. I thank the Prime Minister for his personal and active support for my role. I will also repeat the thanks that the Minister of State has relayed to David Burrowes, the Prime Minister’s deputy special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, who works alongside me daily in this role and without whom I could not do it. In fact, I said that to him when I was approached to take up the role and he said, “You take it up and I will help you,” and he has. The Bill would not be being brought forward today but for David’s sterling work in this field.

I also thank Lord Alton of Liverpool for his work over many years on this issue. It was Lord Alton who first took me to a meeting of Aid to the Church in Need, where I heard at first hand of the atrocities that were being perpetrated against people around the world simply on account of their beliefs.

Finally, I thank Mervyn Thomas, the founder president of CSW. He started CSW 43 years ago and has worked on this issue ever since. He approached me within a few days of my entering this House as a Member of Parliament and asked whether he could discuss the issue with me. I pay tribute to him for all that he has done over the years. It is so encouraging to hear him say that there has never been a time at which those around the world concerned about abuses of freedom of religion or belief have been working more collaboratively. That is much needed, because there has never been a time when those abuses have been so great. This Bill and its safe passage will be an important step in strengthening the UK’s work, in collaboration with others, towards a future in which freedom of religion or belief is honoured and stronger.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Religious Persecution and the World Watch List

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered religious persecution and the World Watch List 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving time for this debate on religious persecution and the 2024 Open Doors world watch list. Several hon. Members have spoken to me and said they would have liked to have attended and spoken in the debate, but that it directly clashes with the debate in the main Chamber on Holocaust Memorial Day. We fully understand, because as hard as MPs might try, we still have not worked out how to be in two places at one time.

That allows me to speak more at length than I might otherwise have the luxury of doing, so I take this opportunity to thank Open Doors for its 2024 world watch list and for all the organisation does to ensure that the issue of persecution of Christians and, generously and rightly, of those of other faiths and none is highlighted globally and in particular in this Parliament. Open Doors does a tremendous job of ensuring that its supporters, whom I thank, ask our Members of Parliament to attend the annual launch of the world watch list. This year’s event took place last week here in Parliament, with just under 100 Members of Parliament attending. That is a huge number for a gathering of that kind.

I also thank other organisations, such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Aid to the Church in Need and those that represent people of other faiths such as the Baha’i, the Ahmadiyya Muslims or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with which I work as the special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I thank them for what they do, working as part of a global network of organisations, individuals, NGOs, academics and Government representatives, and collaborating now more than ever to promote and protect FORB worldwide and to challenge its abuses.

Before I proceed, I will also say that while I have had the privilege of being the Prime Minister’s special envoy for more than three years and I have learned a great deal through that role, I speak this afternoon as a Member of Parliament. I will be interested to hear the responses from the Minister, who I am delighted to see in his place. I know he has taken an enormous personal interest in this issue over many years.

As chair for the past two years of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, consisting of Government representatives from 42 countries, I know that we as representatives cannot do our job without the grassroots accounts and information brought to us by those working on the ground in countries and often at great risk and cost to themselves. With that information about the persecution of individuals, we can then advocate, and it is wonderful to be able to advocate confidently on the facts when an organisation such as Open Doors and others I have mentioned bring to us those facts and cases of individuals being so maltreated.

For more than 30 years, Open Doors has produced its annual world watch list, most recently last week for the current year’s edition. It is the product of intensive, year-round research, data collection, interviews and action, all independently analysed and verified to produce a ranking system to portray Christian persecution globally. Details are collected on five areas of non-violent pressure on the freedom of religion for Christians: private life, family, community, the church and business life. Separately, details are collected on violence against Christians, which includes reports of attacks on churches, homes and businesses, detention without trial, jailing, abduction, sexual harassment, forced marriage, and Christians being exiled or displaced, tortured and even killed.

It is a gruesome schedule. It is even more distressing when we realise that when the Open Doors world watch list started just over 30 years ago in 1993, Christians faced high, very high or extreme levels of persecution in around 40 countries and 30 years on that number has just about doubled. Year on year the world watch list now reports increasing numbers of Christians persecuted. According to the report, this year more than 365 million Christians around the world faced high levels of persecution or discrimination for their faith in Jesus Christ. That is one in every seven Christians worldwide. In the top 50 countries covered by the report, 317 million Christians face high, very high or extreme levels of persecution.

Why should that be in the 21st century? As I say, this is happening not only to Christians but to those of many other faiths, and indeed those of no faith at all—humanists, atheists. The watch list highlights a number of reasons. First, there is a shrinking space for civil society. That means a shrinking space for people to speak publicly about their religious beliefs. There is an increase in autocratic regimes across the globe. Religious faith and allegiance is anathema to an autocratic regime, which demands undiluted loyalty.

That goes not just for North Korea, where we hear of a two-year-old child having been sentenced to life imprisonment simply because his parents owned a Bible. It does not just go for China, where we know there are severe restrictions on practising the Christian faith, with children under 18 now banned from church, along with many other groups in society. It is happening in Asia and Africa too, in countries such as Eritrea, where there is appalling cruelty. Tens of thousands are imprisoned there simply because of what they believe.

Prisons in Eritrea are not like prisons here. People are placed in shipping containers where they nearly burn to death in the heat of the noon sun at over 40° with little if any ventilation, or they are virtually frozen at night. Many go mad. Many die. Others are imprisoned in what are literally holes in the ground dug into the earth —maybe no bigger than 4 metres by 6 metres, if that, and often shared. They have little chance of escape, and are often kept for years with little chance of release.

Open Doors talks about one such prisoner in its report. It is only when reading about the experiences of individuals that we can appreciate that the numbers we talk about relate to people like us. Abdullah—not his real name—had a Government job, like many people in this room, in Eritrea. A co-worker baited him into making comments while secretly recording him. The next day, he was arrested, charged and sent to prison. He grew up in a traditional Muslim family, but became a Christian and married a Christian woman; they had seven children. He was recorded after he spoke about his faith to his colleagues, and spent two years in prison. His wife shared that she was not allowed to bring him extra clothes, and he only received food three times a week. His health deteriorated and he needed medical attention; he died in 2022. There are many like Abdullah in Eritrea, imprisoned simply on account of what they believe. It is no wonder that Eritrea is No. 4 on the world watch list.

Persecution is also increasing due to the rise in the use of technology by regimes. It enables persecution on an industrial scale unimaginable even a few years ago, and that technology is being exported all over the world. A human rights lawyer and Uyghur activist, Nury Turkel, has written a wonderful book called “No Escape”. It is a powerful and authoritative memoir about the detention of the Uyghurs in China; he himself was detained. He writes that in East Germany, once the Stasis targeted a dissident, it took an entire team of covert agents to tail them—not any more. All-pervasive surveillance cameras can use artificial intelligence to scan vast numbers of people using facial recognition software, or even a person’s particular gait or walk, to pick them out of the crowd. A handful of people can now keep tabs on millions, and then arrest and incarcerate at scale. The problem, of course, is that AI has no moral sense of right and wrong.

There has also been an increase in gender-based violence: violence against women and girls, who suffer doubly if they are a member of a religious minority. This discrimination, often justified on religious grounds, exacerbates lawless mob violence—with no legal action taken. Time permitting, I hope to speak more on this regarding the abduction of young girls in Pakistan for so-called forced conversion and forced marriage. I wish we could think of another phrase, because that is a heinous way to put it. There are potentially hundreds of Hindus, Sikhs and Christians being mistreated in this way, including girls as young as 12, often with no recourse to justice, cast out of their communities even if they escape.

Another reason for the increase in persecution worldwide is what Open Doors describes as the collapse of Government institutions—the collapse of the rule of law in the face of widespread lawlessness. Open Doors quite rightly highlights Nigeria, where there are major problems, as we have said many times in this place. It is no surprise that Nigeria is No. 6 on the world watch list.

It is important to describe personal experiences. At the launch last week, Henrietta Blyth, the CEO of Open Doors UK, relayed the experience of one man. She said that while we were all enjoying Christmas eve, and while Christmas day found us all with our families once again, at exactly the same time in Nigeria, in the middle of the night, gangs of Fulani militants launched a devastating attack on Christian families in the central Plateau state. Twenty-five villages were attacked; 160 people burned to death in their homes; 15,000 people fled; and eight churches were burned down. She said that the violence continued from Christmas eve until the morning of Boxing day.

The militants discovered older people, women and young children who were hiding by the riverside. They shot some of them, and hacked others to death with machetes. One man tells how his wife “was not fast enough” and the attackers caught up with her:

“They grabbed her and my two children. They shot my wife and my children before my eyes. There were so many things we wanted to do. All our plans are shattered. Now I don’t know where to start from.”

That is happening on a regular basis in Nigeria. People go to bed at night fearing attacks from militant Islamic extremists, and not enough is being done by the Government there to address it. We need to call it out and help those people. They are asking for help when they suffer in that way and lose their homes and livelihoods.

The UK in 2022 spent £110 million on UK bilateral aid. Surely some of it could be spent on helping victims of massacres such as the Owo massacre, which I spoke about recently at Prime Minister’s Question Time, and in which more than 40 people were killed in their church. I brought here one of the survivors, Margaret Attah, and her husband. She lost both her legs and an eye. She spoke in the Jubilee Room next door. I was amazed at the grace of her husband, Dominic, when he said, “I forgive them all.” That takes some doing. It was moving; Margaret was sitting quietly in her wheelchair, and one of the people there asked, “How can we help you?”. Dominic and Margaret said, “We really could do with a computer”, and within three days, money had been gathered by volunteers and a computer was delivered to them. Margaret also needs prosthetic limbs. Wonderfully, again as a result of that meeting, a colleague in this place has offered to try to help with that. That is wonderful, but survivors of massacres ought not to have to rely on almost individual charity. There should be a way in which UK aid can quickly help them.

Another cause of the rise in persecution is religious nationalism. It is often accompanied by hate speech, which drives persecution of religious minorities and often incites mob violence. Criminality is overlooked. I ask colleagues and those listening to have a look at the concerns relayed in the report about the collapse in stability in Manipur in India. Since May last year, I have worked with Open Doors on looking into what has happened there. It has ensured that we have interviewed individuals affected, and that people on the ground have gathered accurate information. What is happening in Manipur is horrific and widespread, yet the world knows very little about it, partly because the internet has been disconnected there for much of the time since what happened. Let me read hon. Members a little about it:

“attacks have not been limited to one tribal group. More than half of the 400 churches attacked were those of Meitei Christians— 249 of these within the first 36 hours of rioting.”

How could so many churches be attacked in the riots without some premeditation? We have even heard that houses that were attacked had been marked; the doors of Christians had been marked. According to Open Doors’ sources, around 70,000 Christians

“have been forcibly displaced….Particularly horrific has been the situation for Christian women in Manipur.”

I have mentioned the plight of women already. In one incident,

“women were dragged from a police van by a mob…before being stripped, paraded and sexually assaulted. The younger woman’s brother and father were killed trying to protect them.”

Sadly,

“Open Doors researchers have verified five case studies of women being targeted for sexual violence, with the police failing to intervene or protect the women.”

As I say, the increase in persecution is happening all over the world, much of it due to autocratic regimes. The world watch list 2024 highlights that in South America there are concerns about Nicaragua and Cuba. In Nicaragua over the last year, the Catholic Church has been severely attacked by the Government. Radio stations run by Catholics have been shut down, as have schools, medical centres and even a university. Even Mother Theresa’s nuns, who have been there for 30 years, were expelled without notice.

It is heartening that in such cases the international community comes together. Non-governmental organisations and Government representatives from the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, of which I am a member, have championed the situation of Bishop Álvarez of Nicaragua, who was imprisoned for 26 years for speaking out about human rights violations last year. I am very pleased to say that two weeks ago, he was released as a result of that campaigning, so it does work, although sadly he has been expelled from the country.

I encourage people to campaign for and support Pastor Lorenzo of Cuba, who has been imprisoned in Cuba for a seven-year term for raising the issue of human rights violations. There is information about his plight on the CSW website. We want him released, so please support that campaign.

Other cases include that of 27-year-old Hoodo Abdi Abdillahi, from Somaliland—I apologise; I know that I have not pronounced her name correctly. She was arbitrarily arrested and sentenced in October 2022 to seven years in prison, simply for becoming a Christian. She was reported to the authorities, in violation of her right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and her right as a member of a religious minority in Somalia. Of course, Somalia too is high on the world watch list; in fact, it is No. 2. We have learned that during her trial, which was allegedly very swift, she did not even have defence counsel, and she has not had an opportunity to appeal her sentence. Her appeal case is being brought to the Somaliland court of appeal, but the hearing date has been repeatedly delayed by the court. International organisations have taken up her case. I do hope that she will be released, and I urge others to support her.

Ordinarily in such debates, I would not have this much time. I am very pleased that I have been informed that today I do have the luxury of time, so I now turn to the recommendations in the Open Doors report. I apologise, because some of the comments that I will make will perhaps appear just a little bit dry after the human stories of the last few minutes, but it is important that we look at the recommendations.

One of the recommendations says that the UK Government should

“Promote and protect FoRB as a leading priority in foreign policy and diplomatic engagement”.

The UK Government frequently pronounce that promoting and protecting freedom of religion or belief is a priority in their international human rights work. It is true that it is much more of a priority than it was just a few years ago. Defending FORB has risen up the political agenda.

I am interested in comments made by Sir Malcolm Evans, the principal of Regent’s Park College, University of Oxford, and a member of the Foreign Secretary’s advisory group on human rights. Sir Malcolm has said that in the mid-1990s—that would be about the time that the Open Doors watch list began—the growth of international human rights law concerning freedom of religion or belief had barely begun. It is testament to many, including Open Doors, that in the 30 years since, it has indeed risen up our Government’s agenda.

I pay tribute to all individuals and organisations, such as Open Doors, CSW and Aid to the Church in Need, that have worked to ensure that parliamentarians here continue to press our Ministers. I pay enormous tribute to my colleague the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for his sustained work on this issue, because it is in large part as a result of that that our Ministers and officials have taken hold of this issue in a way that they did not just a few years ago.

I have worked internationally, and I think we can be very proud of our Parliament. There is no other Parliament in the world where, across the parties, this work and advocacy happen on this scale. Having 170 Members of Parliament and peers as members of the all-party group— it is the biggest all-party group out of, I think, over 700 now—is testament to the commitment of our colleagues to this issue.

I also thank Ministers. I thank the then Foreign Secretary, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for initiating the Bishop of Truro’s independent review for the Foreign Secretary of Foreign Office support for persecuted Christians. The review was published in 2019 and made 22 recommendations. It has been part of my mandate as envoy to try to get those recommendations implemented. I also thank the Prime Minister and the current Foreign Secretary for their support for my role, which I know is strong. I thank, too, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is responsible for development and Africa, and of course the Minister present today.

We have come a long way in the last few years, and there has been improvement in addressing FORB, but there is much more to be done. Three years after the Truro review’s work, experts carried out an independent review of it. Rather politely—they are academics, so this may be the language they use—the review concluded that

“there remains scope for further developments in order to ensure that the protection of FoRB for all becomes firmly embedded in the operational approach of the FCDO as a whole.”

That is right. A number of Truro recommendations still need to be implemented fully or effectively if, in line with the review’s core principle, FORB is to become truly mainstream in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and a leading priority in foreign policy and diplomatic engagement, as the Open Doors report recommends.

I will mention a few areas in which we—I use the word collaboratively, because I recognise that I, too, have responsibilities in this regard—need to step up. For example, a lot of work has been done on producing religious literacy materials, including a FORB toolkit, to help our officials and diplomats in embassies across the world to understand what FORB is and the importance of protecting it, promoting it and understanding the principal areas of different faiths and beliefs. However, it is really important that the material is read and used. The problem is that, although its roll-out should be mandatory, as Truro recommended, it is not—it is just recommended. We need a review of how often and to what degree the materials are being taken up, because we need to ensure that every diplomat working in the world watch list’s top 50 countries has been through them, and others too.

Engagement by the diplomats who work in our embassies and diplomatic posts around the world needs to be ramped up, acknowledging that in the context of peacebuilding, supporting democratisation and the development of inclusivity, FORB needs to be included with other human rights. It is more necessary now than ever. As international commentators now frequently remark, the rules-based international order has not been so imperilled for decades. The international scene is darkening. There can be no assumption of peace and security; we have to work for it.

Although religion can be a cause of conflict, it can also be a force for good. Is peace not a core value of most religions? In the context of our trying to prevent conflict and deter wars, the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief is vital. Indeed, it has much to contribute upstream to preventing conflict in the first place. I commend the education materials that have been developed in four primary schools across the country, one in my constituency, that help children as young as four to understand this. It is one of the activities that our international alliance has inspired. What has come out of it is that children as young as four grasp very quickly how important it is not to be unkind to people simply because of their beliefs.

Similarly, we have worked with older young people. In October, we had a 24-hour global conference—a virtual conference—which young people across the world could join using open space technology. They came from countries where there was persecution and where they wanted to work on the issue. More than 500 young people from more than 70 countries across six continents joined the conference. If we could inspire young people to be global ambassadors for FORB in the same way as they have been global ambassadors for climate change, we could really see change in the next generation. That is what I call the ultimate upstream prevention work, but most of that work is being done by the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance. Let us look at how we can ensure there is some real support from the FCDO for that work with young people.

We should be bolder when we work with countries where persecution is high or where there is risk of persecution. We should not underestimate the UK’s influence. I see that happening around the world: we underestimate our influence on this and other issues, but Ministers in post need to be equipped and to know about what resources are available to them from across the FCDO. It would be interesting to ask the Minister how many briefings on freedom of religion or belief he has received when travelling to countries where he is responsible for representing the UK. I believe those countries include Nicaragua and Cuba in the Americas, which rank as 30 and 22 respectively on the world watch list and where FORB concerns have seriously increased in the past year. That should be happening as Ministers travel, whether to countries such as those or to like-minded countries where we can discuss how to work more closely with those countries to promote FORB.

I am not saying that good work has not been done, but I think we could work more strategically. We need to have specific action plans for certain at-risk countries. Just as His Majesty’s Government has focused so well on women and girls, we need to strengthen collaborative working with those in the FCDO and elsewhere who are working on this issue.

I went to the conference on the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative around a year ago. I was surprised that there was such limited—if any—reference to freedom of religion or belief, despite the double jeopardy of women who are in a religious or belief minority. I spoke about those in Pakistan, but we also see women in Iran and Afghanistan, from religious groups such as the Hazara Shi’a community, being excluded from society. They are women and they are members of a religious minority. We need to look at how we can integrate work on freedom of religion or belief in the FCDO, along with other human rights issues. We need to ensure that the Foreign Secretary’s advisory group on human rights meets regularly to ensure that FORB issues are incorporated into wider human rights discussions.

You will be pleased to hear that I do not have too much longer to go in my speech, Ms Vaz, but there are some important points that I want to make to the Minister. It is good that we have been imposing sanctions following the Magnitsky laws, but we need to be more prepared to impose sanctions, specifically against perpetrators of FORB abuses, through the human rights global sanctions regime in order to send a powerful message to those who target people on the basis of their beliefs.

It is welcome that there is a mass atrocity prevention hub at the FCDO, but, as Open Doors rightly says, that needs to recognise the connection between the persecution of Christians or other religious minorities and the risk of mass atrocities. A plan for the work of the hub is needed, but there is no plan. That is one of the Select Committee recommendations that we have to take forward.

It is good, too, that FORB is more on the FCDO’s radar, but we have not yet fully worked out how to establish cross-departmental work in the Government, as the Truro review recommended. Nor have we convened

“a working group for government departments and civil society actors to engage on the issue.”

We need to do that. I know that needs to happen because, over the past year, I have held several roundtables in my office in the Foreign Office, bringing together officials and civil society—15 or 20 of us sat round the table. Time and again, officials have said that they did not know what civil society was bringing to them. We need to narrow that gap. One of my aspirations is to narrow the gap between Whitehall and Westminster; there is only a road between them, but it is a big gap.

We are doing great work with like-minded countries as members of the international alliance of 42 countries, but we need to work harder to engage with countries that do not qualify to join the IRFBA. Several countries have approached me because they are interested in joining—countries such as Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Indonesia. I have met their representatives, and we need more dialogue with them in order to move the dial on freedom of religion or belief. All those countries appear in the world watch list top 50, but there is a door and an opportunity for dialogue.

It is excellent that, with the United Arab Emirates, we delivered a landmark security decision on tolerance and international peace and security last year, but we need to look at how to take that work forward. I look forward to meeting the UK mission at the UN next week when I am in New York to discuss that issue.

I am grateful that Open Doors referred to the need to address human rights concerns around emerging technology. It is excellent that our Prime Minister has taken a lead on AI, and we need to include in that discussion its challenges for FORB.

I thank the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, for listening to my team’s concerns and including the plight of religious minorities in the recent White Paper. When people are discriminated against because of their beliefs—perhaps they cannot get a job, education or healthcare—they will be poorer. That needs to be recognised and addressed, but it has not been to date. It is excellent that religious minorities are mentioned in no fewer than six places in the “International development in a contested world: ending extreme poverty and tackling climate change” White Paper. We need to make that a reality to help the millions across the world who are affected by integrating FORB into UK aid thinking; the Department for International Development did not do that in the past.

We have a real opportunity to be a global leader if we lead the dialogue on the review of the sustainable development goals up to 2030 and provide evidence that they will succeed only if this issue is addressed and included. Marginalising and disadvantaging religious groups drives poverty, and the SDGs will continue to be compromised if those groups are left behind. Our ability to achieve them will be enhanced if there is a better understanding of the value of religious freedom and pluralism in societies. I commend the work of the Coalition for Religious Equality and Inclusive Development in that regard. I look forward to working further with it and with Ministers to take this issue forward and build on the excellent White Paper.

I thank Open Doors for highlighting the importance of recommendation 6 of the Truro review, on establishing the role of the Prime Minister’s special envoy permanently. I thank Foreign Office Ministers for their support for my private Member’s Bill, which has its Second Reading tomorrow. It is vital that the envoy role is not dependent on the discretion of any individual Prime Minister. It has been my privilege to serve under three Prime Ministers who have all been very supportive, but the role cannot be dependent on the good will of the Prime Minister in place at the time. If the work done by me and my predecessor envoys, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and Lord Ahmad, is to continue and be strengthened, the role must continue.

I conclude with the words of Sir Malcom Evans:

“the establishment of the Office of the Special Envoy has been a real driver of, and catalyst for, change. What is needed is for that Office to have legislative grounding to ensure that this continues, that it has a more clearly defined position and that its impact continues to grow…Making it so will help support the development of detailed, focussed and clearly articulated policies and strategies which will complement take up and lend further substance to what is already now in place. We have come a long way—but there is a long way further to go and it is all too easy to go backwards. Can a bulwark also be a springboard? Hopefully, a legal duty to promote freedom of religion or belief will be both.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the Minister for his response and, indeed, all colleagues who have contributed to the debate. We are all very much of one heart and mind that this important issue is one that needs to continue to be moved forward. It is in that vein that I say to the Minister that, yes, I am forceful in my role, but I make no apology for it—millions are suffering across the world.

There was almost complete unanimity but not quite. I want to come back on the position of the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) for the Opposition. I very much appreciate her presence in these debates and she contributes thoughtfully, but I want to quote some of the report from Open Doors on Nigeria and west Africa, because we have a difference on the level to which religious differences are a motivating factor in some of the violence there.

The report says,

“ISWAP (Islamic State West African Province)”

—the clue is in the title to an extent—

“continues to menace Nigeria’s north-east and many other parts of the country.”

According to Open Doors research:

“A decentralized armed group with ethnic ties to the pastoralist Fulani people, the Fulani Ethnic Militia”—

a separate group—

“attack predominantly Christian villages, abducting, raping and killing people, destroying buildings and harvests or occupying farmlands.”

The report quotes the July 2023 all-party parliamentary group on FORB report, “Nigeria: Unfolding Genocide? Three years On”. Based on evidence from a wide range of organisations, it concluded that FORB violations had “worsened” in the intervening years, with religious identity remaining “the key motivator” in the violence and Christian groups suffering “disproportionately”. It pointed to the fact that while a range of other factors are contributing to violence in Nigeria, from poverty to existing ethnic tensions, the flow of weapons and insecure borders, contributors to the report highlighted how the religious dimension was often obscured or played down by appeal to those other factors. I want to put that on the record.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. Could I just say to the hon. Lady that wind-ups are two minutes?

[Fiona Bruce]

I will conclude.

I therefore believe that with regard to the recent universal periodic review on Nigeria, while it was good that the UK’s recommendations highlighted blasphemy and the need for accountability for mob killings in Nigeria, it is regrettable that the UK did not mention increasing attacks on religious minorities, or freedom of religion or belief.

I close with a quote from Henrietta Blyth at the Open Doors launch of this year’s world watch list. She said:

“Never has it been more important for those of us who are free to worship as we wish to wake up to what is happening to our Christian family and those of other faiths around the world”

and to speak out.

Question put and agreed to.

That this House has considered religious persecution and the World Watch List 2024.

Human Rights in Hong Kong

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and in particular to have heard the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), which I can only describe as statesmanlike.

To the casual observer, freedom of religion or belief may appear to be the one freedom still standing in Hong Kong. Although Hongkongers are no longer free to protest or publish what they wish to in the media or online, as basic freedoms of expression, association, assembly and the press have been stripped away, they are at least still free to go to church. In mainland China, the sinicization of religion means that religion must align with the Communist party’s values. That has led to places of worship being shut down, destroyed or desecrated, crosses being destroyed, Chinese Communist party propaganda banners being placed alongside religious imagery, surveillance cameras being placed at the altar, under-18s being prohibited from going to places of worship at all, and clergy being arrested and jailed. In Hong Kong, at least, places of worship are still open.

Beneath the surface, however, it is clear that freedom of religion or belief is under threat—indeed, in its true sense, is already being stealthily restricted. As Ambassador Brownback and I state in a foreword to a recent report, “‘Sell Out My Soul’: The Impending Threats to Freedom of Religion or Belief in Hong Kong”,

“Freedom of religion or belief is about so much more than simply the right to go to a place of worship once a week…It is, as expressed in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a fully-fledged expression of conscience.

Interpreted in this way, this basic and fundamental human right is clearly under increasing and intensifying threat in Hong Kong”.

[Jim Shannon]

One of the examples of where attacks on FORB are unfolding in Hong Kong is education. Nearly 60% of Government-funded schools in Hong Kong are Church run, and they are now under the control of Beijing, which promotes its propaganda in the curriculum. Does the hon. Lady agree that believers can practise their faith only in name rather than in essence? Beijing controls religious freedom in Hong Kong by exerting total control over Churches, without closing them. That is the reality in Hong Kong.

[Fiona Bruce]

It is indeed, and if time permits I will go into more detail on that point.

I join others in paying tribute to Ben Rogers, who ably researched and drafted the “Sell Out My Soul” report. In a sense, it is inevitable that freedom or religion or belief in Hong Kong has been undermined, for two reasons. First, when freedom itself is dismantled, sooner or later religious freedom is impacted. All the basic rights set out in the universal declaration of human rights are interlinked and interdependent. We cannot have freedom of religion or belief without the freedoms of expression, association and assembly, and elsewhere I have argued that FORB is fundamental to all those freedoms. Secondly, like any autocratic regime, the CCP has always been inherently hostile to religion and has sought over the years to eradicate, suppress, control or co-opt religion, so it was inevitable that, as it exerted greater direct control over Hong Kong, undermining the high degree of autonomy set out in the one country, two systems principle, freedom of religion or belief would come under increasing pressure.

The campaign against religious freedom in Hong Kong is one of slow, subtle suffocation rather than sudden, dramatic crackdown. However, although the threats may be subtle, for those who have eyes to see, they are clear. Yes, people can still go to places of worship and access religious literature, but since the introduction of the draconian national security law in July 2020 and the climate of fear surrounding it, with almost all of Hong Kong’s other basic civil liberties—freedom of expression, association, assembly and so on—having been dismantled, inevitably there is a knock-on impact on religious freedom. It has created a chill factor, leading believers to keep quiet about their faith in public, and religious leaders themselves to make compromises, including widespread self-censorship by clergy in their sermons.

I will give some examples. In August 2020, Cardinal John Tong, apostolic administrator of the Hong Kong Catholic diocese at the time, instructed all Catholic priests to “watch your language” when preaching and to avoid “political” issues. A Protestant pastor, who has now left Hong Kong, claims that his church has removed all his sermons from the past 30 years from its website. Many churches no longer share sermons online. At least three prominent pastors have been arrested in Hong Kong. The most well-known case was the arrest of Hong Kong’s 91-year-old bishop emeritus, Cardinal Joseph Zen, in May 2022. Then there was Pastor Garry Pang, convicted of sedition and sentenced to a year in jail, and Pastor Alan Keung Ka-wai, arrested in January last year for producing and selling a book that was allegedly seditious. Arguably, all those cases relate to political rather than religious activities, but those individuals were acting according to their consciences, informed and inspired by their faith.

We see religious freedom threatened in other ways. Charity laws have been tightened. The US State Department’s 2022 report on international religious freedom noted:

“Religious groups may register as a society, a tax-exempt organization, or both”.

However, with reference to organisations seeking tax exemption, it added:

“Government tax regulations provide that any group, including religious groups, involved in activities deemed to endanger national security would not be recognized as a charitable organization.”

The message is clear.

An issue of even more concern is how church-run schools in the education sector are a particular target for the Chinese Communist party’s stealthy undermining of religious freedom. As one religious scholar observed:

“The CCP knows very well that in order to control a state, the first step is to control the mind[s] of young children.”

In Hong Kong, only a small percentage of Government-funded schools are actually Government run. As we have heard, the majority—at least 60%—are run by religious groups. Under the Basic Law, those schools must adhere to a curriculum that ensures that the CCP’s ideological narratives feature prominently. The crackdown on freedom of expression resulting from the national security law began to impact Hong Kong’s church-run schools almost immediately. In August 2020, the Hong Kong Catholic diocese issued a letter to the principals of all Catholic primary and secondary schools, urging them to enhance students’ awareness of the new national security legislation and the national anthem law, and cultivate “correct values” on national identity.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Front Benchers will have roughly eight minutes each. I call the SNP spokesperson.

Trial of Jimmy Lai

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Jimmy Lai has been an extraordinary champion of free speech, which he chose to continue, despite the changing landscape in Hong Kong. We continue to support people across the piece, many of whom have come to the UK for sanctuary, to be able to be able to speak out and use our freedom of press to share their concerns and highlight the abuses they are seeing.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I join the calls for Jimmy Lai’s release. He is a devout Catholic, and his faith motivates his courageous campaigning for democracy in Hong Kong. After the sustained dismantling in Hong Kong of freedoms of expression, of association, of the press, of judicial independence and others, does the Minister share my concerns that the threats to freedom of religion or belief in Hong Kong are now very real? If she does not, will she please read “Sell Out My Soul: The Impending Threats to Freedom of Religion or Belief in Hong Kong”, the new report by Hong Kong Watch?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

My hon. Friend continues in her role to be an extraordinary champion for freedom of religion or belief, and I absolutely agree with her. We continue, of course, to monitor freedom of religion or belief in Hong Kong through our regular six-monthly reports to Parliament and through interactions with local faith leaders. The latest report, published on 19 September, noted that:

“Religious practice is generally not restricted,”

with a variety of

“religious practices coexisting across the territory.”

She is absolutely right: the strength that Jimmy Lai seeks and finds through his faith is extraordinary and it will help him in this very difficult time.

Persecution of Buddhists: Tibet

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and, of course, my colleague and friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank him for calling this debate and for his dedication to speaking out for those who have no voice and are oppressed, in particular because of their religion or belief. I have the privilege of being the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. However, I will say for the record that I am speaking today in my role as a parliamentarian. I also thank the duty Minister for coming to the debate. I welcome her and look forward to her remarks.

It is a privilege on occasion to have a little more time than one normally has to speak about an issue. If I may, I will first go back to a report produced by the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission when I was the chair in 2016, titled “The Darkest Hour”. It was about the crackdown on human rights in China from 2013-16. There is a chapter on Tibet that quotes from submissions to us:

“Since the Chinese invasion in 1949, an estimated 1.2 million Tibetans have been raped, tortured and murdered, thousands imprisoned and over 6,000 Tibetan Buddhist monasteries destroyed”.

That was according to the submission from Tibet Post International, which also said:

“Every aspect of Tibetan life is under siege and Tibetans have even fewer civil and political rights than Chinese people also ruled by the Communist Party…The regime enforces its control over every aspect through the threat and use of arbitrary punishments, at times including severe violence.”

The Tibet Society submitted to us:

“Tibetans charged with political crimes are often tried in secret, not allowed independent legal representation and evidence against them is extracted by torture”.

Free Tibet submitted:

“a number of political prisoners escaped from Tibet between 2013 and 2016 and provided testimonies about their treatment in prison in the years immediately before 2013, including beatings by police and other security services during interrogation sessions, mock executions, receiving electric shocks during interrogations and being locked in cells that were pitch black or so small that they could not move…several… reported being shackled to a device known as an iron chair, which forces the detainee to bear their entire weight on their wrists and legs. They would be hung from this chair for periods of up to four or five hours at a time, sometimes accompanied by electric shocks and intervals when they are removed from the chair and beaten”.

That was in 2016. In 2020, the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission produced a further report. It was quite difficult to find a title for the report, because we had already called the previous report “The Darkest Moment”. We therefore had to call this one “The Darkness Deepens: The Crackdown on Human Rights in China from 2016-2020”. In summary, regarding Tibet, we noted that:

“Repression in Tibet has intensified…Torture and ill-treatment are widespread and continue with impunity…Images of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan flag are banned…‘There are more foreign journalists in North Korea that Tibet’, according to Tibet Post International…Reporters Without Borders listed Tibet 176 out of 180 in its Press Freedom Index…Freedom House lists Tibet as among the worst in the world, with the lowest score for civil and political rights…Restrictions on the use of Tibetan language create discrimination”

and

“Thousands of homes…destroyed in the Buddhist communities of Larung Gar and Yarchen Gar”.

I will give a bit more detail about those examples. There was destruction of homes and forced removal of people from several areas on a mass scale, in the two places that I just mentioned, for example. Free Tibet and Tibet Watch indicated that the removal of communities in Larung Gar and Yarchen Gar had been “drastically escalated” in the past four years. In the four years to 2020, 4,828 residents were removed from Larung Gar, 4,725 buildings were demolished and those

“who were removed were required to sign documents stating that they would not return”.

Some were driven many miles away—some even 1,700 km away. In this report, the Conservative Human Rights Commission concluded with the warning:

“As international attention increasingly focuses on the atrocity crimes against the Uyghurs”

and

“the destruction of freedoms and autonomy in Hong Kong…there is a danger that Tibet could get forgotten…it is vital that this does not happen, and that the egregious human rights violations in Tibet receive the attention they deserve”.

That warning was given in 2020, and, sadly, those words were all too prescient, because the atrocities that have been meted out in Tibet have not received the attention they deserve. While an increasingly and rightly intense international spotlight—including from the UK—has been focused on the plight of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, it has not been focused on Tibet with the intensity with which it should have been. That includes by us in the UK.

I know that the duty Minister will respond in a number of ways and will read out that we are concerned about human rights violations in Tibet, including the restrictions on freedom of religion or belief and on freedom of assembly or association, as well as reports of forced labour. Speaking as a parliamentarian, however, I say that the words we are using simply do not express enough concern.

The Minister will no doubt comment that in June 2022 the UK and 46 other countries made a joint statement at the UN Human Rights Council on the human rights situation in Tibet, and called on the Chinese authorities to abide by their human rights obligations. I have that statement in front of me—just one line refers to Tibet, and even that does not do so exclusively. The exact words are:

“We also continue to be gravely concerned about the deterioration of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong and the human rights situation in Tibet.”

The Minister may also refer to the fact that in September 2023 the UK raised a specific issue of the boarding schools—that have been referred to by other hon. Members—in a national statement at the UN’s 54th Human Rights Council. Again, I have that statement here, and again, Tibet is mentioned in just one line of a much longer statement referring to a number of other countries. Once again, even in that line Tibet is not referred to exclusively. It reads:

“Systematic violations persist in Xinjiang and Tibet, where the UN reports a million Tibetan children have been separated from their families to assimilate them into Han culture.”

There are hardly words to describe what is happening. The fact, as reported by the UN—an authoritative source with experts who have looked into this—that around a million Tibetan children are being removed from their families to be compulsorily re-educated. I have heard that that involves children as young as two years old; we are speaking of very young children here in many cases. The UN experts indicated that that points to

“the vast majority of Tibetan children”

so we are talking about a generation losing their familiarity with their native language and the ability to communicate easily with their parents. I have heard that those children might be allowed back home for a short time after, say, three months. They then find that they cannot understand what their parents are saying—they have lost the ability to communicate. That contributes to the erosion of the identity of those children of the Tibetan people, and is contrary to their educational, linguistic, cultural, and other minority rights, freedom of religion or belief, and to the prohibition of discrimination.

In fact, the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide—there is no stronger crime—states:

“Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”

is genocide when committed

“with intent to destroy…a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

We need to use much stronger words when we are speaking about such issues. I know that might not always be possible in formal UN statements, but there is nothing to stop us speaking about them outside that environment in a way that reflects the absolute misery that these children must be suffering.

The Minister may also refer to the UK co-ordinating with partners to draw international attention to the human rights situation in Tibet—most recently in the November 2023 G7 statement. I also have that statement in front of me and my staff have done a search for “Tibet”. It is several pages long, ranging across the world with whole paragraphs covering concerns relating to individual countries. There is half a line on Tibet—again, not exclusively. It reads:

“We also remain concerned about the human rights situation in…Xinjiang and Tibet.”

Meanwhile, the abuse in Tibet continues. The language being used to condemn it is wholly inadequate. Will the Minister please review how we refer to what is happening in Tibet?

We need to speak out more strongly, because words do matter. Only yesterday, Ben Rogers, a long-time authority on this region, and indeed, the vice-chair of the Conservative party’s human rights commission when I was chair, spoke on this issue. He was largely responsible for the research, drafting and production of the reports I have referred to, and he said that China shows consistently that it does take note of international criticism, and that pressure, public statements, and where necessary, sanctions, are important. What more will our Government do to call out those concerns?

We have just commemorated the 75th anniversary of the genocide convention, sagely saying, “Never again”, but it is happening again for the Tibetans. Their centuries-old ethno-national identity, religion and cultural heritage are seen by the Chinese Communist party as disloyalty and a threat to the state, so they are being systematically and comprehensively erased.

Why and how? Because the decades-long occupation of Tibet has happened with inadequate protest from the world and while the Chinese have refined their tactics for suppressing an entire people. As Nury Turkel, commissioner for the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, says chillingly:

“It became efficient at eradicating culture and independence while evoking very little protest from the world.”

I recommend Nury Turkel’s excellent and well-informed book, “No Escape”. Chen Quanguo honed the oppressive techniques now being used in Xinjiang in Tibet, with far too little outcry from the world.

Hitler said:

“Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

The world looked away, and Hitler then invaded Poland and began his genocide of the Jewish people, allowing authoritarians to keep persecuting, and the world looked away. The world is now too often doing the same with Tibet, as China brushes aside and away the heritage, culture and identity of Tibetans, only now using facilities that were unheard of only a generation ago: digital dictatorship, technology for mass surveillance, artificial intelligence, and spying, even on children, using electronic devices.

I will refer now to the work of the religious and cultural heritage working group of the International Religious Freedom of Belief Alliance, which I had the privilege to chair until I handed the baton over just yesterday to the ambassador from the Czech Republic, Robert Řehák, who will take over as chair for 2024. That working group on religious and cultural heritage has been co-led by my deputy special envoy, David Burrows, and he took the opportunity at the recent ministerial meeting on freedom of religion or belief in Prague just two weeks ago to speak of his concerns about the weaponisation of the Tibetans’ cultural heritage by the Chinese. He explained that the Chinese authorities are not only seeking to extinguish the Tibetans’ own cultural traditions; by cynically using international systems to register themselves as the custodians of Tibetan culture, they are asserting their ownership of it. Through that process, they are making Tibet more aligned to Chinese Han culture.

That is done through policies such as conservation registrations and techniques, for example through the UNESCO system that facilitates registration of cultural and religious assets, and through the registration of cultural expressions under the World Intellectual Property Organisation. This is something that we should be alert to and aware of. Tibetan religious cultural heritage is being weaponised by the Chinese authorities to reimagine and redefine Tibet’s status as a culture, at the very same time that China is challenging Tibet’s right to independence.

In the case of Tibet, there is a pressing urgency to recognise that it will be increasingly hard to defend the freedom of religion or belief for its people, who are threatened by cultural genocide and, in the case of the children who I have referred to, by actual genocide. Those are compelling words, but more action is needed to address this issue.

I want to close by referring to a statement that my successor as chair of the international alliance, Ambassador Robert Řehák from the Czech Republic, will shortly be producing. It was discussed yesterday at our monthly plenary. There are now 42 countries in our alliance, and each month we select an individual religious prisoner of conscience to champion. Our December prisoner of conscience is the 11th Panchen Lama. I cannot think of a worthier, more capable and committed successor than Ambassador Řehák. He will say:

“As the Chair of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, I express my grave concern for the ongoing enforced disappearance of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama, whose whereabouts and well-being in the People’s Republic of China…have been unknown for nearly 30 years.

PRC authorities abducted Gedhun Choekyi Nyima in 1995 when he was six years old and just days after His Holiness the Dalai Lama recognized him as the 11th Panchen Lama. In response, the PRC installed its own Panchen Lama and continues attempts to compel Tibetan Buddhists to pledge allegiance to the government-selected individual.

I am concerned that PRC authorities have denied Gedhun Choekyi Nyima a lifetime of being able to freely practice his faith in a manner of his choosing. Further, I find the lack of independent access to his whereabouts, the seeming restrictions on his freedom of movement, and the limited information about him spanning nearly three decades highly troubling.

Gedhun Choekyi Nyima is one among many Tibetans whom PRC authorities have silenced or oppressed for expressions of their beliefs, culture, language, and traditions. This includes detaining Tibetans for possessing images of the Dalai Lama, such as Go Sherab Gyatso, a Tibetan Buddhist monk currently sentenced to 10 years in prison for his peaceful advocacy and whom authorities previously detained for reportedly possessing and displaying a portrait of the Dalai Lama.

The PRC’s cultural erasure throughout Tibet, including efforts to ‘Sinicize’ Tibetan Buddhism and interfere in the selection process of Tibetan Buddhist lamas, including the Dalai Lama, are alarmingly widespread. Earlier this year, several UN experts expressed concern about credible reports that PRC authorities have coerced approximately 1 million Tibetan children in what they characterized as a ‘mandatory large-scale programme intended to assimilate Tibetans into majority Han culture, contrary to the international human rights standards.’ Separating a generation of Tibetan youth from their heritage will do untold damage to their ability to shape and preserve their identity.

I urge the PRC to cease all human rights abuses against Tibetans, including by accounting for the whereabouts and well-being of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima; ending the coercion of Tibetan children into government-run boarding schools; upholding freedom of religion or belief for all; and abandoning policies and practices aimed at erasing Tibet’s rich cultural, religious, and linguistic identity.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman, and he was generous in his description of that potential further abuse of Buddhists’ freedom of religion.

The special rapporteurs warned that such programmes would lead to “situations of forced labour”, and they have suggested that “hundreds of thousands” of Tibetans have been transferred from work in the rural sector to these new jobs through this process. These amount to systematic human rights violations against Tibetan Buddhists and are part of the Chinese authorities’ efforts to erase the Tibetan identity and to assimilate Tibetans into the majority Han culture. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton set out in stark clarity the shocking real-life impacts on Tibetans as the authorities try to erase their identity.

This Government are determined to promote and protect human rights, no matter where violations or abuses occur. We have shown time and again that, when allegations are substantiated, we will speak out and hold China to account. We co-ordinate with partners to draw international attention to the human rights situation in Tibet. Recent examples include the 8 November G7 Foreign Ministers statement, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, and our item 4 statement at the UN Human Rights Council in September. In June 2022, the UK and 46 other countries joined in a statement at the UN Human Rights Council expressing deep concern about the human rights situation in Tibet and calling on the Chinese authorities to abide by their human rights obligations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton expressed the frustration that many feel. Any multilateral statement is invariably less punchy than any single country statement would be.

[Fiona Bruce]

I accept that there is frustration about the type of words used, but there is also frustration about the proportion, the number of words used—or rather the lack of words used about Tibet.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

My hon. Friend sets out her point clearly. As someone who has sat in many a multilateral session—the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned COP, which I led on two years ago—it is often a slow and tortuous process to reach a form of words that as many countries and voices can sign up to as possible. My hon. Friend’s point is well made, however, and we will continue to raise the matter. The past couple of years have been the first time this issue has been in those statements. We will continue to work on expanding them and on persuading with the force of the evidence other countries to accept the realities of what we see, so that they will be willing to be stronger in the multilateral statement that we can put out together. Her point is well made and well heard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman will know that it is not just the Government but many different organisations that are seeking to identify what is happening on the ground, and the extent to which international humanitarian law is being abided with. Any such evidence will undoubtedly be put before the relevant authority—the courts that he mentioned, specifically—if such evidence is available.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to implement the UK’s commitments in the White Paper on international development, published in November 2023.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

The White Paper includes 217 commitments to be delivered through to 2030. I have asked officials in the Foreign Office to work with colleagues across Government to implement the commitments and determine the order of priority.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the Minister for that reply and for his leadership on the excellent White Paper, particularly because, in the run-up to its publication, he clearly listened to calls for more targeted support and humanitarian relief for those who are left behind on account of their religion or belief. The challenge now is to turn those innovative commitments into reality, which will require a revised approach to development programming. Will he meet me and others at a roundtable to discuss that?

[Mr Mitchell]

It is always a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend, who has an office next to mine in the Foreign Office. May I thank her for her comments about the publication of the White Paper? The way in which it has been received around the world demonstrates renewed energy and vigour. I hope that it shows Britain’s reinvigorated leadership on those important matters, and, of course, value for money for our taxpayers.

International Development White Paper

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I think the D is a good deal less silent than it was. I thank the hon. Lady for what she has said. On the immediate return of the money, she is right; that is the stated policy of the Government and, I think, of the official Opposition. On restoring the Department, I draw her attention to what the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), have said, which is that they have an open mind on this, and they are trying to see where we get to by the time there is a general election, were they to come into government. If we can produce something that is better than the two separate Departments and delivers global public goods in the 2030s, that might well be seen by everyone as a step forward.

The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) is right about the cultural point. To make a merger work—there is no such thing as a merger; one side wins and one side loses, as I learned many years ago in the City of London—the culture is very important. If development practitioners and experts are respected by the traditional British Foreign Office and they work together, as they have done on putting this White Paper together, that is a very great strength indeed.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

One reason the SDGs are off track is that they have not to date recognised that leaving someone behind, whether out of education, a job, healthcare or otherwise, simply on account of their religion or beliefs means they will be poorer. Discrimination and persecution are drivers of poverty, affecting millions globally. I warmly congratulate the Minister on listening and including clear recognition of this in several places in the White Paper, but words need to be turned into action. What action is planned to ensure that religious minorities are taken into account in the design of development assistance programmes and in the forthcoming review of the SDGs?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am very glad that my hon. Friend—who is, after all, the Government’s envoy on these matters—has already read the White Paper so assiduously. She will, as she said, have noted that there is a clear commitment to do what she sets out, and I have every confidence that working with her, the Government will be able to advance that important agenda.

UN Sustainable Development Goals

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for calling it. I welcome the Minister for Development to his place and commend his long-time commitment to this issue. I also welcome his call for evidence for the White Paper on UK international development, and I am pleased to hear that there has been a great number of contributions. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that my speech will echo my submission to the White Paper, and I look forward to hearing his response.

If the sustainable development goals are to achieve their aim of leaving no one behind, the review looking towards 2030 must include a greater focus on and consideration of people experiencing inequalities due to their religious marginalisation. If people are excluded from healthcare, education or the job market on account of their religion or belief, they will be poorer for it. I will amplify that by quoting from an excellent paper from the Danish Institute for Human Rights. Referring to SDG3, on universal healthcare coverage, it said:

“In contexts where religious/belief minorities...are marginalised ...they often experience restrictions on their access to health care services and quality treatment. In the most extreme cases, health facilities may be destroyed, and staff attacked as part of religiously related conflicts or situations of violent oppression of religious/belief minorities. In other contexts, access is restricted through state policies and practices. Bias in health budgeting and priorities, for instance, may mean that infrastructure is lacking or of low quality in areas with a predominance of religious/belief minorities”.

With regard to SDG4, on access to all levels of education for all, it said:

“In contexts where religious/belief minorities and indigenous peoples are subject to marginalisation, discrimination or oppression, their levels of enrolment in school are often lower than that of the majority population. In a few cases, certain minority groups’ access to public education is explicitly restricted by law, primarily at university level.”

We can see an example of that in Iran, where the Baha’is are excluded from university. Violations and abuses of people’s human right to freedom of religion or belief are a driver of poverty in conflict and non-conflict situations. It needs to be recognised and addressed as such, just as work has been done to address the poverty challenges faced by women and girls or the less abled across the world.

This is not a small problem. More than eight in 10 people worldwide identify with a religious group—around 6 billion people. Of those, many millions experience discrimination or persecution on account of their beliefs, and that situation is getting worse year on year. Of course, marginalisation and persecution are complex issues, and they may not necessarily be motivated only by religion. There can be and often are other factors—economic, political, cultural, social and historical—but it is vital not to underestimate the role of religion and belief in marginalisation, discrimination and persecution. We in secular or more secular countries are often prone to do that.

The word “religion” barely merits a mention in the current SDG terminology, and traditionally international development has often adopted a religion-blind approach. Certainly, no one should be a priority for aid assistance on account of their religion, but in many countries where religion plays a greater role in life and essential services may be provided overwhelmingly by those belonging to a majority religion, a religion-blind approach risks ignoring the effects of religious otherisation, where people who are already socioeconomically excluded are further marginalised on the ground of their religion or belief. To many of our international partners, especially in the global south, that approach can be seen as religiously illiterate, and contributes to a failure to achieve the “Leave No One Behind” agenda.

To give a clear example of that, the Coalition for Religious Equality and Inclusive Development has done remarkable studies in India, South Africa and Uganda showing that when religious inequalities exist, they undermine the principle of equitable access to healthcare. In Pakistan, CREID found that where the caste system was prevalent and people were in extreme poverty, the vulnerability of Hindus and Christians in Sindh province was accentuated, because as religious minorities already on the margins of society, they were overlooked by the World Bank’s poverty alleviation programme. Similar concerns were raised about DFID’s Iraq emergency humanitarian programme in 2014-16, highlighting that with more than 75 mentions of vulnerable groups, in only one instance was religious or ethnic identity mentioned—that of the Sunni Arabs who might be displaced into Shi’a or Kurd areas.

To counter such situations in the future, a review of the SDGs must address the absence of discussion of religious inequalities in international aid discourse and seek to change that to include appropriate policies and practices to ensure inclusive development. In particular, it must listen to the voices of religious minorities, whose exclusion is seriously undermining the likelihood of the SDGs achieving the aspirations we all want to see of improving the lives and prospects of everyone and leaving no one behind.