Prisoners of Conscience

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. We all agree that the number of Members able to attend in the Chamber today in no way reflects the importance we attribute to the issue; it has much more to do with the democratic processes happening in parish halls and on doorsteps across the country right now.

As Liberal Democrats, we stand firmly in solidarity with those imprisoned for their political views around the world. We believe that free speech and the freedom to organise are fundamental democratic rights, and those imprisoned for such causes are true symbols in the fight for democracy, free expression and the right to challenge Government policies. The free practice of religion should be a universal right for all people, everywhere. It is vital that we shine a light on religious persecution wherever we find it, and commit to opposing it with unwavering resolve. Many religious people globally face extreme forms of oppression, including threats to their very lives. We are deeply concerned by the lack of global action to safeguard religious freedoms, protect minority groups and uphold human rights. That must change.

Liberal Democrats have a proud history as strong defenders of freedom of religion and belief. Those are not just political positions; they are our core beliefs. Human rights and the rule of law stand at the very heart of what it means to be a Liberal Democrat. In our 2024 general election manifesto, we committed once again to protect, defend and promote human rights for all, including those persecuted for their religion or belief. We called for the appointment of an ambassador-level champion for freedom of belief, and increased funding for humanitarian aid and asylum support for those fleeing religious persecution. We firmly believe that liberalism and co-operation have a vital role to play in securing peace, promoting democracy, and defending human rights across the world. The UK must work with allies as a champion of freedom of belief.

Today, certain countries have notably high numbers of prisoners of conscience, often tied to political regimes, religious repression or authoritarian governance. In China, the Government’s policies in Xinjiang have led to the mass detention of Uyghur Muslims in “re-education” camps, where they face torture and forced indoctrination. House Church Christians face harassment, arrest and imprisonment simply for practising their faith outside state control. The deliberate, systematic persecution of the Uyghur population meets the standard for imposing sanctions under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. We call on the Government urgently to issue their UK-China audit, to set out a clear approach that includes work to shine a spotlight on Beijing’s human rights abuses.

Russia, under President Putin’s increasingly authoritarian leadership, has seen a crackdown on opposition figures, journalists, and minority religious groups. Jehovah’s Witnesses have been labelled an extremist organisation, leading to numerous arrests.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

In power there are balances of opportunity and risk, and one important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) was that Ministers often have bigger fish to fry when dealing with international relations. From the hon. Gentleman’s perspective, what is the right balance between standing up against human rights abuses, and maintaining and developing relations with emerging powers such as China?

[James MacCleary]

That is an important question—indeed, it is one of the questions for British foreign policy as we go forward. This is not just about China; we can also look at a country such as Türkiye at the moment, where we see clear oppression of political opposition, although Türkiye also plays a key role in the defence in Europe and the future of European security in relation to Russia. The hon. Gentleman is completely correct. It is not for me to tell the Government how to get the balance right, but any Government need to have a set of principles that they abide to, and to say, “This is the standard we are setting, and we apply it equally to everybody.” Those of us in the room might come to different conclusions as to what those standards are, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not underestimate the compromises that have to be made by Ministers. Obviously I am not in that position, but some of us in the Chamber are, and I welcome the intervention.

In Russia, political dissidents and human rights activists have been persecuted—a clear example of that is the late Alexei Navalny, who died in prison on dubious and politically motivated charges. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who published the famous book “The Gulag Archipelago” in the 1970s. That was so dangerous to the Soviet regime that it was suppressed completely and banned in Russia—a great example of how freedom of expression can play an important role in bringing down entire regimes, however secure they may seem at the time.

[James MacCleary]

That is an area of great importance, particularly in Russia, where the regime has now become so stifling that there is little freedom of expression at all within the country, and we do not see much—Alexei Navalny was a great example of Vladimir Putin completing his suppression of political opposition. It is fundamental for our Government to support voices for democracy and freedom across the world, and that is particularly important now when we face this challenge from Russia, which is interfering in the internal processes of other countries. It also becomes particularly incumbent on leading democracies such as ours to find ways to help promote freedom of expression, and the ability of journalists to do their jobs is particularly important to that.

We have a moral duty to stand with those who risk everything for democratic and press freedom, from Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong to Mzia Amaglobeli, a journalist who was recently arrested in Georgia—a good example of Russian overseas interference. The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) was right to mention Alaa Abdel el-Fattah, who is imprisoned in Egypt. Their courage is a stark reminder that defending democratic values must never be selective or silent.

In Iran, the regime maintains a strict interpretation of Shi’a Islam and enforces its religious laws through harsh measures. Members of the Baha’i faith are persecuted on charges of apostasy or heresy. Christians, especially converts from Islam, face arrest as conversion is considered a criminal offence. The recent crackdown following the death of Mahsa Amini demonstrates the regime’s continued brutality.

According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, there are currently 1,342 individuals assessed as imprisoned for their religion or belief, with the highest numbers found in China, Russia and Iran. The Government must do more to work with our international partners to secure the protection of religious rights and robustly challenge states to ensure all people are safe to worship and express their political beliefs. This must include states upholding Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights that guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

We call for specific actions: first, using the UK’s Magnitsky sanctions, to stand up against human rights abuses; secondly, banning imports from areas with egregious abuses, such as Xinjiang; thirdly, enshrining in law a right for British nationals who have been politically detained abroad to access UK consular services; fourthly, developing a comprehensive strategy for promoting the decriminalization of homosexuality and advancing LGBT+ rights globally; and finally, stronger UK engagement with international bodies, such as the United Nations, the European Union and the Commonwealth to promote religious freedom worldwide. We call for a long-term, comprehensive global strategy to protect freedom of expression, political and religious rights, and to create a world where no one is imprisoned for peacefully expressing their beliefs.

The Liberal Democrats strongly oppose any form of authoritarian or totalitarian rule that seeks to imprison or silence individuals for their beliefs. We will continue to urge the Government to use the UK’s influence and foreign policy to promote and protect these values.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Is there not a dichotomy there? The Liberal Democrats profess that they are against authoritarian rule, and yet for us to project power internationally, even if that is soft power, we risk involving ourselves in the sovereign decisions of independent countries. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when we seek to impose our values on other cultures and countries we create a tension? Where does he think the right balance lies?

[James MacCleary]

Whole books on liberalism are written about this very topic, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows. The situation in the United States at the moment has brought this into sharp focus. For many years, we have heard countries around the world speaking about how America, at times with our support, has intervened in the internal affairs of their countries, and have asked how that is consistent when America has complained about them doing the same thing. Now that America is taking a different role, perhaps some people are reassessing what levels we should go to. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question right now, although I am happy to have a separate discussion with him, if he would like, but hon. Members who are interested in foreign affairs have to think about the subject that he touches on and where the line lies. Famously, the Americans refer to the Mogadishu line as a line that they crossed in Somalia, where they felt they got too involved in the internal affairs of that country. Clearly, that is a difficult issue, but I thank him for raising it.

To conclude, our commitment is clear: to protect, defend and promote human rights for all around the world. We will not rest until every person can freely express their beliefs without fear of persecution.

UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I am really honoured that she is here today, because her voice is so important. When I was elected to the House last year, I was really proud to be here as part of a diverse Parliament. That diversity is welcomed across the House and is reflected on these Benches. That is good, but I have to be honest and say that we have heard from many parliamentarians—not just here, but across the UK—that if they had known what being an elected representative would bring to their life, they would not have stepped forward. But that is exactly what we need, because the social media companies want those voices to be silenced.

This is not just about our agreeing with the political views we like—absolutely not. I will defend to the hilt the right of people to express views that I absolutely do not agree with, because they need to be heard too. The hon. Member made a really important point, and I thank her for it.

The Northern Ireland Electoral Commission’s report on the 2024 UK general election laid bare that over half of candidates reported harassment, intimidation or abuse; one in ten faced severe abuse; and women were disproportionately targeted, as were minorities, often by anonymous accounts—the point just made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). The consequences were immediate: nearly 40% of candidates avoided solo campaigning and almost 20% avoided social media altogether. This is a system in which intimidation silences voices before they can even be heard. I have heard the same warnings from colleagues across this House, and the chilling effect is real.

It is much bigger than this too. Let us be clear: our democracy is under threat, and the battlefield is not just in Parliament or the ballot box, but online, where rogue states and billionaire tech moguls are manipulating public opinion for their own ends. The recent Romanian presidential election should have been a routine democratic process. Instead, it became a cautionary tale. A pro-Russian candidate who did not debate, did not campaign and supposedly spent nothing suddenly surged to the top of the first round, and the election was then annulled. That was digital interference in action—a warning for every European democracy, including our own.

If Members think that is just happening in Romania, they should think again. Here in the UK, over half of the public said they saw misleading information about party policies and candidates during the last general election. Nearly a quarter of voters say they have encountered election-related deepfakes, while 18% were not even sure if they had. The scale of the problem is staggering. Democracy does not function when voters cannot trust what they see or hear, yet the people in control of these digital platforms are not just bystanders, but active participants.

How is it that Elon Musk, now sitting in Trump’s Administration, owns one of the world’s biggest digital platforms, which has spiralled into a far-right cesspit? Remember when we thought silicon valley’s tech bros were going to make society better—more open and more progressive? Those days are long gone. Now they have tasted power and they are in the White House, endorsing the AfD—Alternative für Deutschland—in Germany, while their algorithms push misogynists and conspiracy theorists to the top of feeds.

This is not a glitch in the system; this is the system. It is a system that rewards the loudest, most divisive voices while drowning out facts and reasoned debate. If we care about democracy here in the UK, we need to stop treating social media giants as neutral platforms, and call them what they are: political actors. If we do not hold them to account, we are not just allowing misinformation to spread, but handing them the keys to our elections on a silver platter.

For online abusers, anonymity is not protection; it is a weapon, and overwhelmingly it is used against women and minorities. For centuries, democratic debate was based on people knowing who they were engaging with. Anonymity once existed to protect the speaker from harm. Now it enables the speaker to inflict harm with impunity. This is not about free speech; it is part of a political strategy; a co-ordinated effort to undermine trust in institutions, silence opposition and create a hostile environment for anyone who dares to challenge the status quo. When those in power let this happen—by dragging their feet on game-changing legislation, by gutting a private Member’s Bill and by potentially scrapping a digital tax, handing more money to the very platforms on which these predators thrive—they are sending a message. It is a message to every woman in public life and every girl in this country that their safety is not the Government’s problem.

What needs to be done? We must deprive these hate figures and predators of the oxygen of publicity. Why is it being tolerated? The Online Safety Act 2023 was outdated before it was even fully implemented. It is too slow and too weak, and the harms it was designed to address have only worsened. Regulators lack the power to challenge big tech, and Ministers are too afraid to stand up to Musk and Trump. Every concession emboldens these extremists, there is no appeasing them, and our children’s lives cannot be collateral damage in a reckless pursuit of growth.

Australia has taken decisive, world-leading action. It has introduced a full ban on social media for under-16s. Meanwhile, the UK’s digital age of consent remains 13. That means children as young as year 8 can legally sign up to platforms awash with violent misogyny, porn, self-harm content and extremist material. What more proof do this Government need? The safer phones Bill could have been a game changer. Instead, it was watered down, gutted and abandoned. Why? It was because this Government prioritised big tech’s profits over our children’s wellbeing. We do not need any more reviews or consultations, but we do need decisive, courageous action. While this Government dither, the average 12 to 15-year-old now spends 35 hours a week—more than a full-time job—on their phone.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a genuinely powerful speech with a really strong argument, and I commend her for it. The Government may be struggling to tackle the digital platforms themselves, but would a useful first step be banning telephones in schools up to the age of 16?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. This is a huge issue to grapple with, but I think the evidence is clear about what this has caused so far. There is a valid discussion to be had about the use of phones, and school is possibly one of the only places where our children’s devices will be taken off them for a set period, but the issue is what is on the phones when they get them back. For me, that is the point at hand.

To conclude, who would want to be a child growing up in this world today? That question is really distressing and disturbing. It is a world in which radicalisation is just a click away, misinformation spreads like wildfire and people’s reputations are trashed in seconds, and it is one in which those who challenge it are met with a wall of co-ordinated abuse. I know I would not want to be growing up today, with political donations, foreign interference in elections, voter manipulation, online bullying, deepfakes, mental health problems and class disruption—and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Sadly, I do not have time to cover it all, but I do know that we have a moral duty to protect young people and future generations, and I truly believe that everybody in this House genuinely believes that and wants to act on it.

This is now a national security issue. A society in which young men are radicalised against women is a society that becomes more violent, fractured and dangerous for us all. We are at a critical juncture. The question before us is clear: do we allow the likes of Andrew Tate, Donald Trump, Elon Musk and others to profit from poisoning the minds of our young people, or do we stand up for our children, our country, our democracy and the very fabric of our society? The Government must act, and act now. So I ask: what is stopping us? If not now, when? The time to act is today, for the sake of our children and, indeed, our very democracy.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member has asked an important question, and I have answered it a number of times. To reiterate, there will be robust security provisions in that regard. That is why China has not welcomed this deal. We will have full UK control with the United States over Diego Garcia. We will have a buffer zone around Diego Garcia, and we will have a robust mechanism to ensure that no activity in the outer islands can impinge on the base’s operations. Crucially, there will be a prohibition on the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, either civilian or military.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

What a disgrace this shabby Chagos deal is turning out to be. Labour are not just giving away our national security; they are going to pay billions to Mauritius for the pleasure. Instead of raising taxes on people and businesses in this country, why does the Minister not stand up for Britain and stop this deal?

[Stephen Doughty]

We are standing up for Britain, by defending our security and that of our allies, and we will not scrimp on that. It is critical to secure the operation of this base. It is crucial to our interest and that of our allies. As I have asked many times, if there was no problem, why did the hon. Member’s former Government start negotiating over this?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to the important work the BBC World Service does in this area, in particular through its language services. I have in the past met its fantastic staff who do that important work. It is important that people have access to free, accurate and impartial information, including in their own languages. We have been clear about the extent of Russian interference in Georgia for a long time and we are clear about Russian interference across Europe in democracies. That is why we are working so closely with NATO and EU partners on that very issue.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

13. What steps he plans to take to help strengthen relations with the US.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

The United States is an indispensable ally and I am committed to the depth and breadth of the UK-US relationship. The Prime Minister and I met President-elect Trump in September for dinner, which was a good opportunity to get to know each other. We of course continue to work with the current Administration. I was with Tony Blinken just yesterday.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Defence spending is a key aspect of our relationship with the United States. Will the Foreign Secretary be able to tell our American allies the date on which we will increase defence spending to 2.5%? If he cannot, what influence will we have on European allies to increase their defence spending?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of defence spending. It has been raised by US Presidents since Eisenhower. He is right that when Donald Trump came to power there were just four European countries spending above 2%. When Labour left government it was at 2.5%. We are sad that it dropped and we are determined to get it back to 2.5% of GDP.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these issues. He will be able to scrutinise provisions in that regard in the coming months.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has come to this House with the smile of a favourite, having exchanged British sovereign territory for a 99-year lease from a Chinese ally, and expects to be applauded for it. He claimed in his statement that we can extend the lease, but can he inform the House whether that right is unilateral and, if so, how many years will that extension be? Why does he think that this piece of paper will prevent Chinese encroachment?

[Mr Lammy]

As I have already said, this is not a Chinese ally; it is one of two countries that have not participated in China’s belt and road in the continent of Africa, for a reason. It is an ally of India, not a Chinese ally, and it is hard to take the hon. Gentleman seriously if he cannot even get his facts right.

Ceasefire in Gaza

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

It has been a truism across so many of today’s speeches that we have a universal desire for the violence to stop, and for it to stop immediately. The only question that exercises us in this Chamber today is, what is the most effective method to achieve that immediate cessation of violence?

I will do the SNP the courtesy of addressing its motion. This is an SNP debate, and it is that party’s motion that is important. However, as has been referred to multiple times today, the SNP motion makes no reference at all to the Hamas attack on 7 October last year. It makes no reference to the stated intention of Hamas to repeat atrocities again and again, similar to and worse than that which was achieved on 7 October. We know that removing Hamas from Gaza—again, something that the SNP motion makes no reference to—is the only way to stop civilians, Israeli and Palestinian, from being killed. If we address only half of the issue, we will condemn any ceasefire to failure and bring about a renewed cycle of killing time and time again and a repetition of that appalling history of violence.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will not give way, because I have so little time. I am sorry.

The most important thing for people in the region right now is an immediate cessation of violence, which will be achieved through a humanitarian pause. Such a pause would stop the fighting, get the aid in and allow for the hostages to come out. It is not delayed by the wider ceasefire negotiations—those are inevitable, because this is a complex matter—but it makes space for those negotiations to take place. Those negotiations are going to have to deal with the release of all hostages. A one-sided ceasefire is no ceasefire at all, nor is a ceasefire that leaves Hamas in possession of their hostages.

The negotiations will also have to deal with the recreation of a Palestinian Government for both the west bank and Gaza, freeing the people of Gaza from the terror of Hamas: they terrorise not just Israelis, but Palestinians too. Crucially, the negotiations have to lead to a credible and irreversible pathway to a two-state solution. That all takes time, but the fighting needs to stop now, so the Government are absolutely right to call in their amendment for an immediate humanitarian pause to give space for ceasefire negotiations but to stop the killing now.

Sudan Update

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

Ultimately, the processing of visas is a Home Office function. We are working closely with the Home Office, but I am not able to give her those details. The prioritisation that we have broadcast is to discharge our duty to support British nationals and their immediate dependants. I will of course make sure that my Home Office colleagues are aware of the hon. Lady’s question.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The FCDO is rightly focusing on the immediate need to evacuate nationals. For that they have my thanks and, I suspect, the thanks of everyone in the Chamber. When that is completed, however, we will leave behind a nation in conflict. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to galvanise international support, perhaps led by the African Union, to help to end the bloodshed?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That action is happening in parallel with our evacuation options. I have spoken directly to one of the generals and spoken through intermediaries to express my views to the other. I know that our action replicates the actions of our international partners, particularly those in the immediate region who have influence. We must push for peace in Sudan. The country has suffered enough, and we must ensure the conflict we are now seeing does not spill over into nearby countries. In particular, we must ensure that malign actors do not interfere in the events in Sudan in order to turn this into a regional conflict.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I recently met a cross-party delegation of MPs from Tunisia, who are united in their opposition to the forced closure of the Parliament building with tanks by President Saied, and now his proposed rewriting of the constitution. To date, Tunisia has been the one spark of hope—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is not relevant to this question. I thought that there must be something somewhere, but I cannot spot it. Let us go to the shadow Foreign Secretary, David Lammy.

Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am really surprised that the hon. Lady would say that. We did an 18-month piece of work on covid disparities and covid’s disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities, and I came to this House multiple times and gave updates and reports, so it is not true to say that the Government did not take that seriously. I am very confident that the findings will be part of the covid inquiry; they were even among the evidence that the commission used, which we built on when we were writing the action plan. If she wants to write to me, I am sure that we can get a report to her to show her its findings.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) stated that the report of the independent commission was received with outrage because it failed to find structural racism. Surely we want Government strategy to be based on evidence, not ideology. Does my hon. Friend agree that a narrative that all minority discrimination is caused by majority discrimination or privilege is by definition divisive, diverts attention away from the real causes of discrimination as found by the independent commission and is incompatible with the goal of a sense of belonging?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I completely agree with that. We cannot have young ethnic minority children growing up being told that everyone in that society is against them. It means that they give up, lose aspiration and decide not to take up opportunities that they should, because the rhetoric is so demoralising.

Russia Sanctions Legislation

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

A number of Members speak with seeming great authority on the tone or the thinking of our allies. I have just returned from Washington, where I have spoken with elected Members and senior officials in the White House, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that the United States recognises the robust position that the UK is taking through the extension of our sanctions regime and that we will ensure, if Russia pursues an aggressive posture, that there are consequences that are meaningful.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

It seems to me that for the first time in my adult life, it is our values—the values of this country and the values of the west—that are being challenged in a meaningful way in Russia and, I am sorry to say, elsewhere in the world. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is in that light that we should see what is happening on the borders of Ukraine, and it is also in that light that we should respond in terms of sanctions?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are incredibly important principles at stake here, and the UK and our international friends and allies are making a statement to Russia in clear and unambiguous terms that we expect it to abide by the commitments that it has previously made to respect the territorial integrity of another sovereign state and to de-escalate and step back from the aggressive posture that it has taken. If it does not, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is making clear that there will be repercussions.