Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank every Member, without exception, across the House who has spoken during the debate, for their authoritative, impassioned and moving speeches, many if not most of which were well informed by personal visits. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for calling me, but in the light of such a high-quality debate, I feel that all I can do is echo the profound concerns that have been expressed for the Rohingya, but I do want to do so because I want to put it on record that I share them.

Few, if any, communities around the world have suffered such severe, grave, continuous and prolonged persecution as the Rohingya. They have been targeted both by the Myanmar military and by extremists from the Rakhine ethnic group and by other proponents of religious intolerance and extremist Buddhist nationalism within Myanmar.

The Rohingya people have been the victims of a sustained and appalling campaign of hate speech, discrimination, violence and, since 2016-17, a campaign that resulted in atrocity crimes, which the US Administration and other international experts have recognised as genocide. The Rohingya are targeted because of their ethnicity and their predominantly Muslim faith.

Since August 2017, hundreds of thousands of Rohingya people have fled Myanmar into neighbouring Bangladesh. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, at the end of March this year there were nearly 961,000 refugees in Bangladesh, almost all of whom are settled in refugee camps in the Cox’s Bazar area of Bangladesh, forming the world’s largest refugee settlement. More than a million Rohingya people have fled Myanmar in successive waves of displacement since the 1990s. The UNHCR said in an emergency appeal that

“most walked for days through jungles or mountains, or braved dangerous sea voyages across the Bay of Bengal. They arrived exhausted, hungry and sick—in need of international protection and humanitarian assistance.”

Since the coup in Myanmar on 1 February 2021, the human rights and humanitarian crisis inside the country has only worsened. The very military that perpetrated the atrocities against the Rohingya are now inflicting similar atrocities against other ethnic groups, particularly the predominantly Christian Chin, Kachin and Karenni, as well as the Karen population, which has a significant Christian population. Indeed, I recently met a teacher from the Karen population who told me how, in order to give the children any education at all, they could not use any of the schools; they had to teach them in the forests and in the trenches to avoid the airstrikes.

This military regime are brutally suppressing civil society, independent media and pro-democracy activists. It is such a sad change from the country of Myanmar that I travelled across just a few years ago, where I met young people who were so hopeful about the future of their country. The conditions for the safe and voluntary return of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar, therefore, are almost certainly not there at present. Indeed, as the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, said as recently as March this year, the small Rohingya community that remains in Myanmar

“continues to face widespread and systematic discrimination in every area of life”—

and that—

“the necessary conditions for voluntary, safe and dignified returns of refugees to Rakhine State simply do not exist.”

Yet Bangladesh, which has provided sanctuary for the Rohingya for many years, cannot be expected to shoulder this responsibility alone, as indeed we have heard tonight. Bangladesh is preparing a pilot scheme for repatriation, which Human Rights Watch has called for a halt to because

“lives and liberty may be at grave risk.”

Conditions in the camps in Bangladesh are dire, leading to thousands of Rohingya refugees risking their lives in precarious boat journeys across the sea to south-east Asia, particularly Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, in search of a better life. Traffickers who facilitate these dangerous sea crossings are giving Rohingya refugees false promises and false hope and placing them in grave danger yet again.

The Rohingya people are trapped. They are stateless, unable to return home to Myanmar, unwelcome in other countries in the region, and in a desperate situation in Bangladesh. The solutions to this appalling humanitarian crisis are twofold: in the immediate term, increased aid to the refugees in Bangladesh to improve their conditions and security, and to assist the Bangladeshi authorities in supporting the refugees; and in the long-term, pressure on the military regime to stop their campaign of crimes against humanity and war crimes, action to hold the military accountable for their crimes, and pressure on the democracy movement to ensure that, in any future democratic transition in Myanmar—when it happens—the Rohingya people’s right to citizenship and basic human rights, including the right to freedom of religion or belief, are respected, protected and upheld.

In closing, I welcome the Government’s provision of £350 million in aid to Rohingya refugees since 2017 and of £15 million in 2022-23 alone, but there is a need to do more. Will Ministers commit to reviewing the needs of the Rohingya refugees and ensuring an increase in aid this year and in the years ahead? Will they commit to working with like-minded countries to ensure that no Rohingyas are repatriated to Myanmar against their will? Will it be a priority for this Government to do everything possible to protect the Rohingyas’ dignity, their rights and the better future that they deserve and that they have, for far too long, been so tragically denied?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I had a meeting with chairperson Mr Moussa Faki on Saturday morning and I can assure the hon. Member that everyone is focused on precisely the problem she has set out.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Good progress has been made on the Truro review, which this Government have given a commitment to implement. Of the remaining work, crucial is recommendation 6 to ensure the freedom of religion or belief special envoy role is permanently constituted—and, Mr Speaker, if I should declare an interest at this moment, I do, although I am speaking of course of the role itself. A short Bill would effect this. Time is now of the essence. Would the Foreign Secretary kindly meet me quickly to progress that?

[Mr Mitchell]

The whole Government are deeply conscious of the brilliant work my hon. Friend does as an envoy; indeed, she occupies the office next door to mine inside the Foreign Office. We will answer her question as speedily as possible—I hope later today.

Human Rights in Myanmar

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) made a powerful speech, and I commend her for securing this debate.

It will probably come as no surprise to colleagues that the issue I want to speak about is the fundamental right of freedom of religion or belief, which is being stamped on in Myanmar, with targeted repression of religious actors. I will highlight one individual, but sadly he is one of many.

I ask colleagues to join me in condemning the recent sentencing on 7 April by a court in Myanmar of Rev. Dr Hkalam Samson to six years in prison on manufactured charges of terrorism, unlawful association, defaming the state and inciting opposition to the regime. I ask them to join the international calls for his immediate, unconditional release, and the release of others similarly arbitrarily detained. Yesterday, I tweeted to that effect in my capacity as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I urge colleagues concerned about freedom of religion or belief in Myanmar, and indeed other rights and freedoms, to join that call.

The Foreign Secretary said just a short time ago in the House of Commons that freedom of religion or belief is a “canary in the mine” for human rights. Where persecution and discrimination occur on account of people’s beliefs, the loss of other human rights follows, as we have seen in the case of Dr Samson.

[Margaret Ferrier]

The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners stated that more than 3,000 people have been killed in the military crackdown on the pro-democracy movement, including activists and other civilians, such as those the hon. Lady has mentioned. I know she condemns the murder of innocent civilians, but will she join me in hoping that that will not deter the brave, peaceful activists advocating for democracy?

[Fiona Bruce]

I certainly will. I am very pleased that the hon. Lady has given me the opportunity to put on the record my profound respect for the people in Myanmar speaking out against the regime at great personal risk, many of whom are religious leaders.

Dr Samson is a former president of the Kachin Baptist Convention, and is the chairman of the Kachin National Consultative Assembly. He is an internationally respected religious leader and advocate for freedom of religion or belief and human rights in Myanmar. He has dedicated his pastoral career to promoting peace efforts, to justice and equality for Kachin Christian, to reconciliation and forgiveness, and to drug eradication. He has helped to facilitate the safe and voluntary return of more than 100,000 displaced Kachin to their homes. In essence, he has been accused of crimes simply because he has spoken out and criticised the military regime’s brutal repression, because he has met people and groups the military do not like, and because he has called for prayers for freedom for the people of Myanmar.

Dr Samson’s international advocacy is well renowned. In 2018, he came to the UK Parliament to meet Members. In 2019, he travelled to Washington DC to participate in the international ministerial conference to advance religious freedom, which was a forerunner of the international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief that we held here last July, at which once again concerns about freedoms in Myanmar were expressed.

I will close by quoting Benedict Rogers, who is an experienced analyst on east Asia, the author of three books on Myanmar, a friend of Rev. Hkalam Samson and, indeed, a friend to many of us here in this place, because those of us who have been concerned about freedoms in Myanmar have for many years benefited from Ben’s wise counsel and his experience of travelling to east Asia many times over many years. This week, Ben Rogers said:

“This sentence is an outrageous travesty of justice. Reverend Dr Samson is a completely non-violent Christian pastor and a brave and tireless advocate of justice, human rights and peace. He has been jailed simply for courageously speaking out against the Myanmar military’s barbaric atrocities perpetrated against the people of Myanmar. The international community must speak out strongly to demand his immediate release from prison and intensify efforts to apply targeted sanctions against Myanmar’s illegal military regime until all political prisoners are freed, the military ceases all attacks in the ethnic states and Myanmar is placed on a path of genuine federal democracy.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Sir Edward, for giving me the chance to make a contribution. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for leading the debate and all hon. Members for their passionate, detailed and significant speeches. It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), who knows more than most about the subject. I thank her for sharing her knowledge with everyone in the Chamber, and those outside who are watching.

As everyone probably knows, I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I will take a specific point of view that is similar to that taken by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), but I will speak generally about the issue. It is a pleasure to see the shadow Ministers in their place, and especially to see the Minister, who grasps what we are saying very well. He knows what we are after. He knows the answers that we seek, and I am hopeful that he will give us the encouragement that we need, which, more importantly, will be encouragement for the people who are suffering in Myanmar. I will illustrate that suffering, which others have illustrated exceptionally well, in my short contribution.

When I think of this subject, the thing that always comes to mind first is the astounding atrocities. Everyone has outlined them, especially the hon. Member for Bradford West. Such atrocities are taking place not only in Myanmar; we had a debate yesterday in Westminster Hall on those occurring in Nigeria. In Afghanistan, too, women and young girls are denied the basic rights that we have as a norm across the world. That was illustrated in the main news on BBC 1 this morning. Today’s debate is an opportunity to shed some more light and make people aware of such human rights abuses, and to support the hon. Member for Bradford West and others in their requests.

I always think that freedom of religious belief and human rights march together. They are not separate; they are one and the same. Religious minorities often find that human rights abuses fall significantly more upon them than upon others, because they seem to be the target. Whenever we speak out for those without freedom of religious belief we speak out for those facing human rights abuses as well. Myanmar ranks at No. 14 in the Open Doors world watch list. Although last year it ranked at No. 12, the fact that it has dropped two places does not for a second reflect an improvement in the rights of Christians in Myanmar. Regrettably, the change in Myanmar’s ranking is a result of persecution in other countries worsening at a faster rate. It is not that Myanmar is improving; others have just got worse and overtaken it.

The press regularly marks the persecution that takes place. There are so many examples across all of south-east Asia, but today’s debate is about Myanmar. Unfortunately, the plight of Christians in Myanmar has worsened in the past year, having deteriorated ever since the military took control in February 2021. This is not the first debate we have had in Westminster Hall on these issues, nor is it the first debate in which everyone present has tried to highlight them. As we know, violence and fighting are increasing across Myanmar, but Christians are suffering disproportionately. Churches are targeted, converts are beaten, and community resources including such basics as clean water are all too often denied to Christians.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Member is, as ever, making a compassionate speech. He referred to churches being targeted. Does he agree that the Myanmar regime’s deliberate targeting of places of worship for attacks, burning and, in some cases, wholesale destruction should be particularly condemned, not only because international instruments such as The Hague convention call for the protection of places of worship, but critically because, so often and particularly in times of conflict, places of worship are focal points where communities gather to support one another and to seek to promote forgiveness, reconciliation and peace?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is so right. For many across Myanmar and the world, churches are the focal point for the local community. That is where people gather to worship, socialise and interact with one another. Although the church is just a building, it is a focal point where people can reassure, comfort and help each other. Whether that is physically, prayerfully or emotionally, it is really important.

[Fiona Bruce]

Of course, we are not just talking about the members of that particular faith group; we are talking about support for the wider community, which is so often offered in such cases.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is right to clarify that. It is absolutely right that whenever someone is being persecuted, whenever someone is under pressure, whenever someone’s human rights are being abused, they do not have to be a Christian to go to the church. Muslims and people from other religious groups can go. It is the social interaction, the encouragement, the brotherhood and the sisterhood that brings it all together. The hon. Lady is right to clarify that.

One thing that really bothers me—I know that it bothers others as well; the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), who will speak shortly, will probably mention it too—is the terrible, criminal, wicked, vindictive abuse of women and girls. The hon. Member for Bradford West set the scene in referring to those who fled across the border, especially women and children. They have experienced some of the most terrible, mind-boggling and sickening abuse.

Others have asked the Minister this, but I am going to ask him as well. Those who have carried out abuse know that they may get away with it today. They certainly will not get away with it in the next world, because there will be a day of justice for them, but I want to see that day of justice happen a wee bit earlier for them, in this world. Will the Minister give us an indication that those who have carried out some of these despicable, awful crimes will be held accountable? There are some that are yet to be held accountable. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow referred to some people being able to walk the streets of London, even though their countries are guilty of some of these crimes. That must be addressed.

Furthermore, as is often the case, women from religious minorities face double persecution. Christian women are forced to adopt disguises in public and are prevented from taking the sacrament of holy communion, which is a basic part of our right to worship and to religious belief. Christians in Myanmar cannot even do that.

The impact of the fighting in Myanmar on Christian displacement is particularly worrying. According to Open Doors research, record numbers of Christians in Myanmar have become internally displaced people or refugees and are living in camps or churches without adequate food or healthcare.

Extreme Buddhist nationalism in Myanmar poses another serious threat to Myanmar’s Christian population. For example, Na Ta La schools aim to convert Christian children to Buddhism, even though their parents do not want that. Buddhist nationalists seem to be pushing that with some severity, effectively stopping Christianity spreading to the next generation. Freedom of religious belief means having the freedom to worship your God as you wish and to have the education that your parents wish. Such Buddhist nationalist tendencies are not prevented by the Government, with actors getting away with impunity. Until legal protections are extended to Christians and other minorities alike, there will always be disproportionate targeting of religious minorities and impunity for the actors.

Is the Minister able to give some encouragement that aid is being provided to the minority Christian populations in Myanmar and the surrounding countries? I underline again the need to ensure that those who carry out terrible crimes are held accountable.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman is making a particular plea to the Minister, who has vast experience of development work—indeed, we spent many recesses with others on the Umubano project, working on aid internationally. What often seems not to be recognised, although I am confident that the Minister will do so, is that the specific targeting of people because of their beliefs, and the specific targeting of women and girls, is often a driver of poverty. It is often a root cause of people living in dire need of aid and development support. That is exactly what we see in Myanmar today.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady clearly underlines my—and indeed her—request to the Minister to ensure that some aid and assistance can be given directly to those groups. They are under terrible pressure. This morning, we probably all had a fairly good breakfast. We were lucky. Some of the Christians in those countries today will not have breakfast, a bed to sleep on or a roof over their head. It is about how we can help those people.

Those are all issues to be concerned with to help us all in realising our goal of an environment in which we can live, preach and worship freely. We are here in this House to represent those who do not have a voice to speak with; we are often the voice for the voiceless. My constituents feel the same. The hon. Lady and I get vast amounts of correspondence on these matters—I suspect that we all do. I frequently receive correspondence from Open Doors sent directly to Westminster by my constituents. The debate gives us a chance to make requests to the Minister and his Department directly and encourage them to ensure that aid and support get to the people who need it. We are pushing at an open door, as I know he wants to respond in a positive fashion; we will get that shortly. We must look for improvements and not a deterioration in the rights of people to worship their God as they wish and not to have their human rights suppressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, to hear so many excellent speeches from across the House and so much consensus on the dreadful situation in Myanmar, and to debate what the UK can do to highlight and combat the terrible injustices and violence there. The last few years have seen no end of horrific human rights abuses in many parts of the globe, from Putin’s brutal and barbaric invasion of Ukraine to the treatment of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Thus, Myanmar has somewhat faded from the headlines since the height of the Rohingya crisis of 2015, but the brutal oppression and systemic human rights abuses continue apace.

The Government should be acting with much greater energy on this crisis in Asia. As the Government move toward the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership in the region, so must they act in keeping with the values of the British people. It is best practice in trade negotiations to include an element of dialogue on human rights. My first question to the Minister is: what dialogue on human rights has there been from the Department for International Trade as it has gone about inserting the UK into the Pacific region?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) said, in the last two weeks we have seen even more airstrikes against civilians. The military junta is currently cracking down on an uprising where civilians are protesting against the Tatmadaw seizure of power two years ago and the ongoing loss of freedoms and violent repression. In her opening statement, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) commented that since the coup against the Government two years ago, the level of human rights abuses and human suffering is staggering.

We heard from the chair of the all-party parliamentary group, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), who has been a steady champion for the Rohingya people. They are already an expelled minority, based in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh. My hon. Friend has stood up year after year in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of that particularly marginalised ethnic group. She has visited Cox’s Bazar, where up to a million refugees live in poverty, creating another generation of marginalised young refugees.

I speak for the whole House when I put on record our thanks to my hon. Friend for championing this issue. She has challenged the Minister today on being more proactive on the International Criminal Court case to bring the Tatmadaw to book. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s defence of that action and what diplomatic efforts are ongoing in international fora to see justice served. What assessment has the Minister made, in his relatively short period in post, of the 82% cut to development aid for the Rohingya who languish in refugee camps, despite the excellent work done by other Commonwealth countries, such as Canada, in highlighting their plight?

Returning to the desperate situation in Myanmar itself, Burma Campaign UK, which has a strong track record in advocating for the people of Myanmar, has chronicled a deeply concerning level of chaos and destruction. The people of Myanmar have had their democratic dream snatched away. More than 2 million people have fled their homes, with the vast majority of them being internally displaced within Burma. More than 21,000 people have been arrested, with around 17,000 of them still in detention. Thousands of civilians and members of resistance forces have been killed. Here in the House of Commons, I have heard through the all-party parliamentary human rights group about doctors who have performed surgery in trenches in parts of Myanmar. That is how desperate the situation is for civilians in the region.

Forty political parties have effectively been banned by deregistering them, including the National League for Democracy, which won the last election, and significant ethnic political parties have also been discriminated against and experienced violence and repression. We have seen the destruction of 60,000 civilian homes and properties, and the ongoing use of airstrikes to target medical centres, schools, religious buildings and camps for internally displaced people.

As the hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have mentioned in today’s debate, freedom of religion or belief is severely curtailed in Myanmar. The hon. Member for Congleton mentioned the important work of Ben Rogers and his book, which was very important for MPs in the 2015 Parliament; it was called “Burma: A Nation at the Crossroads”.

[Fiona Bruce]

I am so pleased that the hon. Lady has mentioned Ben Rogers, because when I spoke about him earlier I did not know that he was here in the Chamber today. I would like to express my appreciation to him for that, and for his continued support of those who express such deep concerns about the people of Myanmar and their situation.

[Catherine West]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and it is wonderful to have allies and champions. In the end, it is the voices of Burmese people that Ben Rogers echoes in his work, and it is very important that we put on the record the work that Burmese people are doing, day in and day out, in order to survive.

Underpinning all aspects of how the UK should approach this brutal regime is the need to tackle its use of violence, and particularly to use all tools available to stop the arming of the Tatmadaw. Without the ability to bomb the civilian population into submission, the military will be severely weakened, and the chances for dialogue and a return to inclusive civilian-led rule will improve. The single best way in which the international community can bring that about is by a ban on the export of aviation fuel to the authorities in Myanmar, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow. Could the Minister provide an update today on the progress the UK Government are making on this important ban? I welcomed the Government’s previously announced sanctions in this area back in January and February, and I fully accept that he appreciates and understands the seriousness of this issue, but there is significant ground still to cover.

The Minister will know that I have repeatedly raised the issue of British insurance companies and shipping companies who may be either directly or indirectly supporting the export of aviation fuel to Myanmar, and I am afraid that the FCDO responses to my repeated questioning on this issue have been very poor. London is at the centre of the global insurance and shipping industry, and we should use its unique position to show leadership on this and make it clear that continued trade in fuel with the regime is not acceptable. I therefore urge the Minister to clarify what discussions, if any, have been had with the industry in London on this specific issue.

I also want to press the Minister on the status of the defence attaché at the Myanmar embassy here in London. I refer the House to the written question that I tabled on this very topic just before the Easter recess, to which I received a response this week. I am afraid that, once again, the question has been ducked. Can the Minister be clear today? Have there been any discussions about the expulsion of the defence attaché from the embassy, to remove any sign of support for or acceptance of the legitimacy of this vile regime?

Finally, we all know that both regional and international action will be critical to success in holding the regime to account. I once again urge the Minister to outline what specific discussions are being had with partners in the region to cut off the supply of weapons to the regime, boost the effectiveness of arms embargoes, and condemn the suppliers in Moscow and Beijing who are playing a key role in legitimising the regime and facilitating the ongoing chaos.

I conclude with these four questions to make it easier for the Minister, because I have asked rather a lot. The UK is the penholder for Burma/Myanmar in the United Nations, with particular reference to the welfare of children. First, what progress has been made on banning aviation fuel, which a number of hon. Members mentioned? Secondly, what progress has been made on banning insurance companies and other financial industries? The City of London has a particular role to play there. Thirdly, will the Minister undertake to raise with the Foreign Secretary the concern that a representative of the Myanmar Government, whose actions have been described, is enjoying a diplomatic lifestyle, which is completely inappropriate given what is going on in that country? Finally, will the Minister review the 82% cut to aid to the Rohingya and work with Bangladesh to provide safe conditions in the immediate short term for the refugees? Will he work with other countries in the region for a decent future for the next generation?

The crisis in Myanmar may not be in the headlines as much as it ought to be, but the suffering of the people there remains in our hearts. The onus is on us to match our actions to our feelings and show the global leadership that the British people want us to display.

Religious Minorities in Nigeria

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his time as envoy. We all recognise his interest in Nigeria. Although he is no longer the envoy, I am not surprised he is here to participate in the debate. I thank him for his knowledge. It is clear to me, and probably others as well, that Islamic State and Daesh are very much in the background. They are using the unrest and perhaps the grievances as well to escalate the violence. The Government and the police and security forces in particular have been accused of deliberately standing by as attacks happen. The impunity must end and our Government—our Minister—should not continue to turn a blind eye when it persists.

In January armed gunmen invaded the home of Father Isaac Achi, a Catholic priest in Niger state, setting his residence ablaze and burning him to death. The attackers also shot his colleague, Father Collins, as he tried to escape. Days later, when the state’s minority Christian community marched to protest security force inaction at the local police station—not in a violent fashion—authorities called in reinforcements and responded with force against peaceful demonstrators. It frustrates me that that is just another example of the Nigerian security forces failing to ensure security for religious minorities and other vulnerable communities.

Many Members will remember the attack during Pentecost Sunday on St Francis Xavier Church in Ondo state. The attack led to the death of 50 worshippers and injured more than 70. Bishop Jude of the Ondo diocese visited Parliament in the months after the attack. I and probably many others met him when he was here. He told Members that despite Government buildings being across the road from the church, the gunmen were able to act with impunity for 20 minutes. Nobody tried to detain them or stop what was happening.

The attack on St Francis Xavier Church is nowhere near an isolated incident. During Holy Week there were numerous attacks on Christians across Nigeria. On Palm Sunday, during an early morning prayer vigil at the church in the village of Akenawe in Benue state, gunmen entered the church, killed a young boy and kidnapped three worshippers, including the church leader, Pastor Gwadue Kwaghtyo. Three days later, on April 5, gunmen killed at least 50 people in the village of Umogidi.

On Good Friday gunmen raided an elementary school building in the village of Ngban in Benue state, which serves as a shelter for 100 displaced Christian farmers and their families. The attack left 43 people dead and more than 40 injured. On the same day gunmen abducted at least 80 people, mostly women and children, in Zamfara state. The Catholic diocese of Makurdi reported that 94 Christians were killed during Holy Week in Benue state alone. Where is our Government’s response to that targeted violence? I am respectful to the Minister, but I need answers—I think we all do—to see what exactly has happened.

While violence has historically been concentrated in the northern states in Nigeria and perpetrated by Boko Haram, recent years have seen the middle belt become the epicentre. Benue state in particular has been badly affected. All those examples indicate exactly what is happening. Fulani herders traditionally migrated through pasture lands in the middle belt region. However, the desertification of the Chad basin has led to those groups being forced to migrate further south, bringing them into conflict with settled farms. Fulani militia targeted non-Muslim communities, trying to secure grazing lands. Five hundred churches in Benue state have been destroyed and more than 200 have been abandoned. That is 700 churches with all their congregations affected.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making a compassionate speech, as ever. Will he, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, join me, as vice-chair, in calling on the President of Nigeria to be similarly compassionate and exercise clemency by granting a pardon to the young Sufi singer, Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, whose situation we have mentioned before in this House and who is in prison, having been sentenced to death by hanging? His case is currently on appeal. He was accused of blasphemy because a song he wrote was circulated, as I understand it, by someone else on social media.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the hon. Lady for all she does. Each and every one of us in this House recognise her good work and I join with her in calling on the President to grant a pardon to this young man. It seems to me that he is guilty of no crime and it is only right that he should be released. I hope that will be the case.

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom raised concerns about a spate of lethal attacks against Christian communities in Kano and Kaduna states. Central Nigeria is known as the country’s bread basket, but because farmers are being killed in their fields, many are afraid to go out to work. First, we need to recognise that security must be obtained for everyone in Nigeria, and the police and the army must be active in making sure there is peace in the streets and securing peace for people to work, live and not be brutalised by others. That is really important. So often, much of the discussion focuses on Christians in Nigeria, and for many reasons. Attacks on Christians receive more headlines in the western media and often, monitoring groups have links to the global church networks. However, the situation for other religious minorities is precarious: the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) rightly mentioned the Baha’i. For humanists, atheists and non-religious belief groups, discrimination and persecution is a fact of life. Many in those groups are forced to live in hiding, making it hard to estimate the number of people in Nigeria of non-religious belief.

I want to give the example, along with a question for the Minister at the end, of Mubarak Bala, a Nigerian human rights activist and president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria. In April 2022, he was sentenced to 24 years in prison for posting blasphemous content on Facebook. He was originally arrested in 2020 and held without charge for more than a year. He faced charges before the Kano State High Court in connection with Facebook posts that were deemed to have caused a public disturbance because of their blasphemous content. In addition to being arbitrarily detained for more than a year before being charged, there have been several other violations of the rights to a fair trial, which include being denied access to his legal representation. I want to express my thanks to the Minister and to the United Kingdom Government, which have been repeatedly outspoken in support of Mubarak Bala’s release. When we were in Nigeria last year, we met some of the Ministers responsible. At that time, we felt we were moving towards a solution. Can the Minister update us on where that is?

Nigeria is also home to a variety of traditional beliefs and indigenous religions. However, they often face discrimination and have less legal recognition. The majority of the discrimination affects children and is particularly prevalent at school. While students have a legal right to wear headscarves, crosses and other symbols of Christian or Muslim faiths, schools have prohibited students from wearing symbols of traditional faiths, such as prayer beads. Schools are obligated to provide both Christian and Islamic education for students, but have no such requirements for traditional beliefs, leaving members of those communities forced to select either the Christian or Islamic course track against their parents’ wishes. Finally, the Nigerian Government recognise the official holidays of Islam and Christianity, but they have refused to recognise holy days common to traditional African religions. Therefore, when we speak for those of a Christian faith, those of other faiths and those of no faith, we do so for everyone in Nigeria—I want to put that on record.

I will come to the horrific case raised by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). On 12 May, Deborah Samuel was murdered by her classmates for blasphemy following a message on WhatsApp. She had passed her exams at Shehu Shagari College of Education in Wamako, Sokoto state, and she posted a voice message in a group WhatsApp saying:

“Jesus Christ is the greatest. He helped me pass my exams.”

Deborah was accused of blasphemy and forcibly taken from the security room. While they were trying to take her from the room to a local police station, she was attacked by a mob, stoned to death and burned beyond recognition.

Many of us in this room have said that Jesus Christ is the greatest and has helped us in our health and jobs, and in all our lives. We have done it and never had any fear; Deborah Samuel did it in Nigeria and lost her life because of it, so the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet is absolutely right. Her killers acted with a sense of impunity. In one video, men with sticks can be seen beating the lifeless, bloody body of a woman reported to be Deborah Samuel. The video also showed young men celebrating, with one man holding up a matchbox and saying he used it to set her on fire and kill her—such gross social media and gross debauchery against an innocent Christian.

Efforts by the authorities to identify and arrest those involved in the murder of Deborah Samuel were met with violent protest. It is nearly one year later, and no one has been prosecuted for her murder. The last statement from the Sokoto state police in August said that they are still looking for the killers.

Sudan

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Monday 17th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The principal way in which we help, particularly in respect of refugees from Eritrea, is through the United Nations and its agencies. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that we are fully engaged in that. Britain—the British taxpayer—is an enormous funder of those agencies, and their work on the ground is absolutely vital.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Over the past decade, Sudan had achieved real progress on freedom of religion or belief. The international freedom of religion or belief leadership network is very concerned about the breakdown in security, which we hope will not set back such progress. As Sudan is a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office human rights priority country, will the Government press all sides in Sudan to respect international humanitarian and human rights laws and to recognise the serious human rights concerns, including on freedom of religion or belief?

[Mr Mitchell]

We certainly will.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, the Minister for north Africa, publicly commented on this matter on 16 February. He has also raised the issue with the Tunisian chargé d’affaires, and G7 ambassadors in Tunisia have also made a number of joint statements since July 2021. We are also aware of reports of racially motivated discrimination and violence towards perceived sub-Saharan African migrants, and we encourage Tunisia to comply with the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

12. What steps he is taking to implement the recommendations of the Bishop of Truro’s review.

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

We welcome the independent review by the Bishop of Truro and ensure that it is central to our human rights work.

[Fiona Bruce]

Almost a year after the expert independent review, which highlighted that there is still much work to be done to fully implement the Truro review, can the Minister point out what progress the FCDO has made in better advocating for those who are persecuted for their religion or belief? Not least, will he confirm that, as our manifesto promised and in accordance with recommendation 6 of the Truro review, the role of Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief will now be established in law?

[Mr Mitchell]

I want to thank my hon. Friend for all her work and commitment in this vital area. Who can doubt that she, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) before her, is the very personification and essence of how this role should be performed? Last July we had an international ministerial conference to advance FORB and we always regularly raise cases of concern. On recommendation 6, she makes an extremely good point and the Government are considering it.

Integrated Review Refresh

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

There is a phrase, “Always leave them wanting more.” Is that not what they say? [Interruption.] Politics is show business for ugly people. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will remain, as I said in my statement, absolutely at the heart of the UK’s foreign policy to work in partnership and with partners. We need to make sure that we maintain our tradition as an open, free-trading nation, working closely with those countries that share our values and protect our interests, as we do theirs. He referred to further iterations which I have highlighted, including semiconductors and our critical minerals strategy. More details will be forthcoming, and he will see that those things are interwoven, not just through the UK foreign policy structure, but in close co-operation with our friends and allies internationally.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

A commitment to promoting freedom of religion or belief was included in the last integrated review, and it is good to hear from the Foreign Secretary that the approach to working on this refresh has been one of evolution. Does he agree that the UK continuing to take a leading role in promoting and protecting freedom of religion or belief across the world, and working with like-minded countries to challenge abuses, are even more important today than they were in the 2021 review, bearing in mind the increased abuses that are happening across the world, not least Russia’s misuse of religion in its attacks against Ukraine and the growing use of increasingly sophisticated technology to control, coerce and oppress people, and restrict their freedom of religion or belief?

[James Cleverly]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in this area. She is right: freedom of religion or belief is a litmus test for good behaviours by Government. Where those freedoms are impinged, that is typically the canary in the mine for other human rights abuses. She is right that we highlighted that in 2021, and we have not lost our commitment to it. This is a refresh—we did not attempt to cover off everything that we covered in the ’21 integrated review, otherwise the document would have been too large.

Human Rights and Religious Minorities: Sudan

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate and for speaking with characteristically heartfelt concern for the vulnerable—on this occasion, the vulnerable in Sudan. I thank him, too, for his dogged persistence, day in, day out, in championing the vulnerable across the world in his role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I cannot commend him highly enough for his leadership in that role.

If the Minister will accept this, I see this debate principally as an opportunity for the UK Government to update not only this House, but those in the wider national and international community who are concerned about human rights in Sudan, on the action that the Government have taken to address those concerns. We have not had a debate on the subject for some three years, although there was a flurry of parliamentary activity in late 2021 after the coup in Sudan, including several statements to which I will refer. I accept that as parliamentarians we have a responsibility to challenge and ask questions, and we have perhaps not called for as much information on the Government’s work since then as we should have. This debate provides that opportunity.

I have the privilege of being the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, but in this debate I speak as a parliamentarian, as I always do in this House, and as vice-chair of the APPG for international FORB. Members will appreciate that my human rights focus will be on freedom of religion or belief. Much of my speech will consist of questions. The Minister is very assiduous and conscientious and is experienced in these areas; I know that she will not be able to answer all my questions this afternoon, but perhaps she might be good enough to write to me after the debate.

After the coup in late 2021, the then Minister for Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), spoke of the importance of Sudanese people being able

“to protest and to pray without fear of violence.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 56.]

In response to a written parliamentary question in November 2021, she stated:

“Over the past two years, the UK has taken a leading role to support Sudan on their delicate path from oppressive autocratic rule to freedom and democracy. We welcome the progress made by the civilian-led government on the freedom of religion or belief since 2019, which included decriminalising apostasy, declaring Christmas a national holiday and lifting public order laws that disproportionately affected Christian women. The acts of the military puts this progress at risk.”

The Minister was, of course, referring to the coup that had taken place a few days earlier.

The then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), made a statement calling for the release of those who were unlawfully detained during the coup, and for the restoration of the civilian-led transitional Government in Sudan. She stated:

“We continue to maintain public international pressure on the military to return to the democratic transition in order to deliver the freedom, peace and justice called for by the Sudanese people, and ensure that the gains of the last two years are not lost.”

I turn to my first key questions. What follow-up steps have been taken by our UK Government since those very important statements were made, to ensure that they have been acted on? With what results? Has the UK continued our leading role, notwithstanding the in-country challenges in engaging in Sudan that followed the coup in late 2021? Those challenges make engagement even more important, bearing in mind what the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom states in its latest report:

“Sudan’s religious minority communities fear that returning the military to power and banishing civilian leaders who led national advancements in religious freedom and broader human rights may presage a reversal of those changes and improvements.”

The hon. Member for Strangford has already expressed concerns that that may well be the direction of travel.

It is right to point out that in November 2021 the UK took immediate action. It secured unanimous support for a resolution on the situation in Sudan at a special session of the UN Human Rights Council that made it clear that Sudan’s civilian-led Government must be restored, detainees must be freed and human rights must be respected. I believe that it is very important to make statements—I have the privilege of chairing the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, which comprises 42 countries, and it makes a number of statements during the course of a year—but I always say that we need to follow up with action. Words are fine, but action can make a difference.

Sudan is a human rights priority country for the UK, as the 2021 FCDO annual human rights report, which was published in December 2022, confirms. It refers to the UK Government securing the special session of the Human Rights Council and says that that session

“mandated a designated expert to ensure human rights monitoring in Sudan.”

My questions are about action. Can the Minister tell us about the appointment, designation and mandate of that expert? What work have they undertaken in the 15 months since that session? What action have UK Government representatives on the ground in Sudan taken since late 2021 to connect Sudanese people with non-governmental organisations working in the region and with faith and community leaders and others concerned about the situation in Sudan, in their own country? Have any meetings with civil society representatives been arranged? If so, with what results?

I know from my work as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for FORB how effective it can be to work collaboratively with civil society organisations. In fact, those of us who champion freedom of religion or belief can do very little unless we work with civil society organisations and NGOs, including international NGOs, which are often the ones that draw our attention to the abuses of human rights that we speak about in this place.

It is also important for Governments to work with representatives of other Governments in-country on such issues; I have seen that being very effective. What collaborative work is being undertaken on human rights concerns in Sudan with other countries that are as concerned as the UK—particularly the US, whose State Department reports highlight its concerned engagement on these issues? What steps have been taken to maintain the public international pressure, which Ministers said was so important at the time of the coup in late 2021, to ensure that there is an improvement, not a deterioration, in human rights in Sudan?

[Margaret Ferrier]

Intercommunal clashes have flared up several times over the past year or so, and the UN special adviser has expressed concerns that violence is being incited by hate speech on social media. Does the hon. Member agree that social media platforms must do more to monitor and remove hateful content that seeks to fuel violence in Sudan and elsewhere?

[Fiona Bruce]

Yes. The hon. Member makes a very important point: social media is being used, particularly by mobs, non-state actors and others, as an incendiary tool to whip people up—young people in particular—to commit FORB abuses. Many Governments could do more to address that.

I turn again to the work of the UK Government. Has it been possible, during this challenging period when the Government have not been as settled in Sudan, to undertake any work to provide technical support for legal and constitutional reforms in Sudan? Progress was being made up to 2021. Has it stalled? Is there anything we can hear that would be encouraging for us?

Have any steps been taken by the UK post in Khartoum to consider the training programme Religion for International Engagement, which was a year or more in the preparation? I was privileged to be involved in work on the programme for some considerable time, particularly during 2021. It was designed to help in-country diplomatic representatives in particular to engage wisely with their counterparts on freedom of religion or belief. I would really appreciate feedback on whether the post in Sudan and our representatives there have actually found that helpful. Have they been able to change their approach towards connecting with civil society and faith and belief leaders as a result, or is there more that ought to be done to help our diplomatic representatives in that regard?

A further, connected question is what use has been made of the funds available from the Magna Carta fund or the John Bunyan fund to address concerns about human rights issues, and specifically about freedom of religion or belief in Sudan. I know that Sudan is a human rights priority country and that funding to such countries has been prioritised, certainly in the case of the John Bunyan fund. It would be interesting to know whether it has been possible to make constructive use of such funds over the past two years or so.

According to the most recent FCDO annual report and accounts, bilateral UK aid to Sudan was £62.2 million in 2021-22 and £142.6 million in 2020-21. Can the Minister detail how that money has been spent? Has any of it been spent specifically on addressing the human rights concerns that have been highlighted in this debate? In March 2021, the then Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge), stated:

“The UK also continues to work with the Government of Sudan, civil society and the UN Integrated Transition Assistance Mission Sudan (UNITAMS), to deliver further progress as part of our wider work to support human rights improvements.”

I appreciate that that was some six months prior to the coup, but aid programmes have a long tailback and a long projection. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister about how the funding has been spent and whether there has been any alteration in or reprioritisation of the use of such funds following the coup.

What assurances can the Minister give the UK taxpayer that steps have been taken, particularly since the coup, to ensure that where funds are used to support the provision of education in Sudan, such programmes enhance freedom of religion or belief and pluralism? Is any work currently taking place by way of technical assistance to support the Government in Sudan with regard to the provision of education materials and accompanying teacher training to support religious freedom, the need for which has been highlighted?

I turn to a matter of grave concern—and not just in Sudan—for many in this House. It has already been highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford. It is the treatment of women and girls. In the case of Sudan, concern about that is combined with concern about penalties for converting from one faith to another. The latest Open Doors world watch list report, which was published just last month, states:

“Christian women and girls in Sudan, particularly converts, are vulnerable to rape, forced marriage and domestic violence for their faith. On a broader level, Islamic extremists have reportedly kidnapped Sudanese girls for marriage and/or sexual slavery. Inside the home, converts may also be isolated to reduce the embarrassment and shame of the conversion on the family, as well as to ensure they cannot meet with other Christians. Converts will also be denied inheritance and, if they’re already married, divorced from their husbands…In August 2022, the government established a community police which resembles the disbanded morality police.”

That underlines many people’s concerns that the advancements in freedom and broader human rights before the coup may now be reversed.

Concerns about the penalty for conversion do not relate just to women. Open Doors reports are updated annually, so its most recent report was published after the coup. It states that Christians, who are a very small minority in Sudan, are

“vulnerable to extreme persecution in public and private life, particularly if they have converted from Islam, and the government hasn’t put real protections in place for Christians and other religious minorities. For example…confiscated churches and lands have yet to be returned to their Christian owners, and trying to build new churches is still extremely difficult.”

What consideration have the Government given to such statements about Sudan, which has moved up the Open Doors world watch list this year? Might the Minister consider the suggestion of convening a roundtable meeting in the FCDO with Sudan representatives, who I know have a lot of expertise in the field, and with non-governmental organisations such as Open Doors, CSW and Aid to the Church in Need, which are all extremely concerned? That might be a way of working together to see what more can be done to address these really important and concerning issues. International Women’s Day on 7 March, which is fast approaching, is a good day for us all to consider highlighting the plight of women and girls in Sudan.

Like many people across the international community, I warmly welcome the appointment of Dr Nazila Ghanea, a professor at Oxford University, as the new UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. She commands huge respect, not just in this country but across the international community of people concerned about freedom of religion or belief. I hope that during her mandate she will be able to address concerns relating to FORB in Sudan, which was last visited by a UN special rapporteur on FORB as long ago as 1996. It would be perhaps be helpful if the Minister considered drawing to her attention the concerns raised in this debate and, equally importantly, the Minister’s response.

The special rapporteur on FORB is an independent expert appointed by the UN Human Rights Council and has great international gravitas. Her task is to

“identify existing and emerging obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief and present recommendations on ways and means to overcome such obstacles.”

Having recently read her report on two prisoners of conscience detained in Somaliland for their beliefs, I know how assertive and authoritative Dr Ghanea can be when she tackles individual cases as part of her mandate. It might be very productive if Members present could think about individual cases to which we might wish to draw her attention.

I am particularly looking forward to hearing about “Landscape of freedom of religion or belief”, the first report of the special rapporteur on FORB in her few months in the role, when she speaks at the UNHRC in Geneva in two weeks’ time. Her immediate predecessor, Dr Ahmed Shaheed, made mention of concerns relating to Sudan in some of his reports. Interestingly, he highlighted concerns about forced conversions and penalties for conversion; I am aware that this was pre-coup, but I do not think that it is inconsistent to refer to it. He noted:

“In 2018, twelve Christian men in Sudan were reportedly accused of apostasy, arrested, severely tortured, and pressured to recant their Christian faith.”

The ability to convert freely without fear of repercussion remains a continuing concern in Sudan that I believe deserves particular attention. As the Minister mulls over our debate, which I am sure she will have a great deal of time to do—my tongue is firmly in my cheek; I know how busy FCDO Ministers are with so many challenges—I hope she will particularly attend to that very concerning issue.

Sudan is signed up to the 1948 declaration of human rights, which includes article 18, under which everyone has the right to freedom of religion or belief, to manifest that right in private or in public, and, critically, to change their faith. Sudan is also signed up to the international covenant on civil and political rights, which states that no one should be subject to coercion regarding their faith. Too many countries sign up to such international declarations without taking steps to ensure that they are honoured in practice.

I hope that the Minister will concur that, however challenging the situation in Sudan, and whatever the capacity of countries to meaningfully address it, the UK should do all it can to encourage and support the people of Sudan to enjoy the freedoms its Government have signed up to. We should continue to urge Sudan to uphold its wider international human rights obligations. We must, as the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, said at the time of the 2021 coup,

“continue to support the Sudanese people in their demands for freedom, peace and justice.”

International Development Committee

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I welcome this opportunity to make a Select Committee statement marking today’s publication of the Government’s response to the International Development Committee’s inquiry and report on atrocity prevention. I would like to thank the Committee Members, staff and specialist advisers, and all who gave evidence.

Next week we mark Holocaust Memorial Day. The horror, loss and trauma of Nazi genocide and crimes against humanity are still felt by survivors, descendants and communities today. But mass atrocities have not been relegated to history. We see these horrors in Ukraine today, where Putin’s indiscriminate bombing subjects civilians to endless misery, death and destruction—appalling crimes that we all condemn.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina last year, my Committee met organisations still grappling with the hurt and havoc wreaked by the genocide and crimes against humanity more than 25 years ago. But right now, while the media sometimes forget, the same horrors are being played out in Syria, Yemen, Ethiopia, China and Myanmar, for example. The promise, made in the wake of the holocaust, of “Never again” has been broken again and again. Genocide and crimes against humanity are never inevitable, and they can often be prevented. To do so, however, we need to be prepared, we need to co-ordinate, we need resources, and we need political will.

As a flourishing democracy, major economy and permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, the UK has a particular power to act. That is why my Committee decided to launch an inquiry into whether the UK is doing all it can to prevent mass atrocities. The subsequent invasion of Ukraine, which occurred only a few months after the launch of our inquiry, underlines the urgency of this work. Although multilateral institutions have a fundamental role to play, our inquiry went beyond the UK’s work in bodies such as the United Nations. We must recognise that Russia and China both wield their veto power to provide cover for their own crimes and to block responses elsewhere. But the deadlock that this forces at the Security Council should not inhibit our own national policy.

The Committee asked whether the UK was using the full range of its own tools to prevent bloodshed. Our primary interest was in the peaceful steps that can prevent violence or de-escalate it at the earliest stages. Our inquiry heard from UK ambassadors, civil society organisations, lawyers and academics, all with a stake in preventing and ending atrocities. I thank them all for their input and for their patient work over the years, acting as a force for peace.

Our inquiry found that, over the last year, there has been a transformation in how the Government address these issues. Spurred on by the integrated review of 2021, the commitment by many in this House and the dogged work of civil society, there is now a new team at the heart of Government: a mass atrocity prevention hub. I am proud to say that the Committee’s inquiry has driven further welcome changes. The Government now recognise atrocity prevention as a distinct objective across Government, deserving attention in its own right. They now accept that mass atrocities can occur outside of conflict as well as within them, meaning that they will have to prioritise the plight of populations in Xinjiang and North Korea as well as those in Syria and Ethiopia.

Following our inquiry, the Government are now reviewing the training and resources they offer our diplomats, to ensure that our embassies can spot and act on the early warning signs of identity-based persecution and violence. Our diplomats often instinctively know when things go awry, but without access to proper mandatory training or detailed policy, they have sometimes been left high and dry. I acknowledge and thank the Government for these commitments. They signal that the UK may be moving towards a new, more cost-effective model of foreign policy, which addresses atrocity prevention more consistently. This model needs to develop civil servants’ capacity and skills, to pursue this goal across Government, making the best use of British diplomacy and aid programming to save lives.

Prevention is infinitely less resource-intensive than responding to the consequences of inaction. However, given these positive steps, I question why the Government decided not to accept the central recommendation of my Committee: namely, to adopt a national strategy to prevent and respond to mass atrocities. Without a strategy, I struggle to see how the Government will measure whether their efforts stack up and deliver real change for those at risk. I fear that, once again, individuals and communities will fall through the cracks of UK policy. They are the ones who will pay the ultimate price.

Of course, the UK cannot and should not seek to shoulder responsibility alone, but it must be strategic. A new model requires a plan that extends to the whole of Government.

It requires dedicated budget lines, whether within the sanctions team, in key embassies, or within the conflict, stability and security fund. Most of all, this emerging model needs political leadership. Acting to prevent mass atrocities must be part of our national security decisions. We must use the latest intelligence to prevent and prepare.

All relevant Ministers must be around the table. I want to see the Minister for Development sitting on the National Security Council, advising on how to use aid programmes to tackle the root causes of atrocities. I want to see the Minister for Security prioritising this issue, safeguarding our shores from the products and influence of countries that persecute their own citizens. I want to see the Minister with responsibility for South Asia and the Commonwealth ensuring that the Government are inclusive and remembering that sustainable and equitable peace centres on the needs of marginalised groups. I want to see the Home Secretary ensuring that our asylum and immigration policies match our commitments to honour the lessons of the holocaust and stand with those fleeing atrocity crimes today.

Let me pause here to underline the importance of our report for our domestic Departments. It is a mistake to think that this phenomenon of identity-based discrimination and violence exists only in some parts of the world and not here in the UK. It is a mistake to think that our obligation to confront mass atrocities begins and ends with our international policy.

One of the easiest things we can do is to provide sanctuary to those fleeing genocide, crimes against humanity, persecution and conflict. Easier still is to avoid demonising and dehumanising the men, women and children seeking safety. Preventing these crimes requires consistency and ethical leadership, and I hope the Home Secretary reflects and acts on this, as how we act now will determine our place in the world for generations to come. It will also shape the dangers we face.

Over many years, the world watched as Syrians were subjected to horrific violence, bombardment of hospitals and civilian areas, and mass graves. We are in denial if we do not see how this paved the way for Putin’s crimes in Ukraine today. We know that the perpetrators of atrocity learn directly from one another, yet those of us who stand against atrocities have often failed to do the same.

Mass-atrocity crimes are not restricted to certain parts of the world. The war in Ukraine reminds us that Europe is not immune to these horrors. Worrying tensions have returned to the western Balkans, despite the call to action that the Srebrenica genocide should have provided. Climate change, new technologies and dangers to democracy only threaten to worsen the atrocity risk that the world faces, so do not think such crimes cannot happen here.

The Government will release an update to the 2012 integrated review in the coming months. and I urge Ministers to centre atrocity prevention within that update. It must set out how atrocity risks will be mitigated across Government, from trade, exports and supply chains to asylum and border policies. We need to see a cross-Government strategy on atrocity prevention. I fully support the Foreign Secretary’s belief that the goal of foreign policy is to make a difference, not just to comment. Our report, which I proudly commend to the House, provides a plan for how to do just that.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her Committee’s excellent report and for her personal commitment to this issue, as evidenced by her powerful speech today.

The Government have a manifesto commitment to implement the Truro review, including recommendation 7 on

“setting up early warning mechanisms to identify countries at risk of atrocities, diplomacy to help de-escalate tensions and resolve disputes, and developing support to help with upstream prevention work.”

Does the hon. Lady agree that adopting the road map outlined in her Committee’s report would not only fulfil this recommendation but would mean that, when we say “never again” on Holocaust Memorial Day next week, the Government can match their words with concrete action?

[Sarah Champion]

I fully support the hon. Lady’s comments. She has been a leader in trying to highlight and prevent the persecution of religious groups around the world. She has done a sterling job.

Early warning is key. We have seen that very simple steps lead to the de-escalation of violence, and this Government have an opportunity, if they use the hon. Lady’s report and the Committee’s report, to make a real difference by preventing these crimes.

Draft State Immunity Act 1978 (Remedial) Order 2022

Fiona Bruce Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 General Committees

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I strongly support the order, which rectifies a gross injustice affecting some of the most vulnerable people working in our society. I have a question for the Minister about the cost of access to justice. As we have heard, some of the people affected are not UK nationals; they will now have access to an employment tribunal. What will the situation be regarding their costs, both at the outset in bringing any such action, and in terms of the recovery of any costs, bearing in mind that most of these people are probably on extremely low wages?