International Day of Education

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), who secured this timely debate to coincide with the International Day of Education.

Over my 25 years as a Member of this House, I have been extremely fortunate to travel to all parts of our planet, whether as part of the Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I served for 15 years; the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which does excellent work, as we all know; the Inter-Parliamentary Union; the NATO Parliamentary Assembly; the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly; or, most especially, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which I served as a governor for nine years, doing work in countries around the world. I have also taken part, over the years, in various missions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to countries including Uganda and the British Indian Ocean Territory. I will say a bit more about the Chagos islands later.

Through my travels I have seen at first hand the impact of British education, cultural exchange and institutional engagement around the world. I felt it right to participate in this debate because I was due to respond to it on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition as a shadow Minister. Although that is no longer the case, I am sure that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) will do justice to the role this afternoon, and I wish him well in his endeavours.

Education has the ability to transform lives and, ultimately, it shapes the world in which Britain must operate. For generations, this country has been regarded as the workshop for global leaders, and the world’s elites have wanted to send their children to be educated here in the United Kingdom. That includes post-colonial leaders such as Lee Kuan Yew, Robert Menzies and Mahatma Gandhi, and contemporary leaders such as the great Tony Abbott and Shinzo Abe. The list goes on—it is very extensive—and we should take great pride in the fact that so many distinguished figures from around the world choose to send their children and families to be educated here in the British Isles.

It is clear that our schools, universities and language, and our great British culture, have projected British influence further than any number of tanks or treaties ever could have done. That influence has been built deliberately through institutions and scholarships that are respected across the globe, including the Rhodes scholarship, the Chevening programme, the work of the Association of Commonwealth Universities, and the generations of Commonwealth scholars who have gone on to become leaders in politics, business, science and civil society. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth, I have seen how thriving these networks of influence truly are.

However, I am afraid that the Commonwealth itself, and bodies such as the Commonwealth of Learning, have been understood by successive Governments as almost like a hangover of colonial times—something from the past that should belong in history. That attitude is wrong and needs to change. We should be proud of what Britain has achieved over the centuries and we should continue those traditions today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing the debate—I am sorry that I could not have been here earlier; I was in the Chamber.

I know the focus of the debate is on what Britain does when it comes education, but the other side of it is that many churches across all of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including in my constituency, have built schools and universities. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the good work done by the churches in my constituency? The Elim church has built a hospital, a health centre, a primary school and a secondary school, and it does work on job training for farming as well. All these things are done by people from Newtownards going to Malawi, to Swaziland and to Zimbabwe. That is an example of what can happen if we all look at some of the good things that are happening.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate is about the International Day of Education.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks. Indeed, they echo what we heard this morning from the Speaker of the US House of Representatives about working together as close allies and across NATO. It is good to welcome guests in Parliament today from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, too.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. As is evidenced by the 2024 Lockbit and 2025 Media Land sanctions packages, the UK works closely with key partners, and remains committed to using all available tools to defend against cyber-threats. Our co-ordination with Australia, the United States and other allies demonstrates to adversaries that we will not tolerate assaults on our public and private institutions and our democracies.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive responses. On ransomware and what we are trying to do with technology, Northern Ireland leads the way on cyber-security, as does south-east England, but the technology is always advancing. The Minister has responsibility for ensuring that we are protected, but at the same time, we need to ensure that our technology moves forward, so that we can equal or outdo our enemies. Can the Minister give us an assurance that that will happen, and that Northern Ireland will be part of it?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member rightly extols the virtues and skills of the excellent workforce in Northern Ireland and across the UK on these issues. I have had the pleasure of meeting people from a number of cyber-security companies. We are doing all that we can to increase the skills chain, and to ensure that we stay steps ahead of our adversaries. We will not tolerate activity that hits consumers and individuals in the UK and risks our national security. We will work with others to defend this country.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

Let me say, for the benefit of everyone in this House, that the United States of America is our strongest ally when it comes to the national security of our country, and rightly so. When the President of the United States raises concerns, we should listen to them, and I would like to think that this Government will act on them.

Let me turn to the details of Lords amendment 5, which would introduce new provisions on transparency about the costs that British taxpayers are being forced to pay. It is vital that this House sees the full costs, as Labour has never acknowledged or accepted the financial costs and burdens of this Bill for the taxpayer. As the House knows, the Conservative party had to force the information out of the Government through freedom of information requests. Labour Ministers have had the bare-faced cheek to come here and give us their valuation of £3.5 billion, whereas the Government Actuary’s Department tells us that it is £35 billion.

In most areas of Government spending, Labour likes to brag about how much is being spent—welfare is a familiar theme that it likes to go on about—but on this issue, it is using a valuation technique to downplay the amount. We have heard the Prime Minister claim that this is

“how the OBR counts the cost”.

However, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said:

“The OBR does not hold any information on the costs or financial impacts of the specific treaty over the future sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago. We can confirm that we have not been contacted by HM Treasury, MoD or the Governments Actuary’s Department”,

so what is the truth? This amendment would help to bring about more openness and transparency on the costs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the shadow Minister and the Conservative party on this amendment, which is crucial. The key is whether the British Government have fully briefed the US about the risks to the Pelindaba treaty that will result from Diego Garcia becoming sovereign to Mauritius, because if they have, President Trump will be very glad to comment on that. Does she agree that the thing to do now might be to contact President Trump?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman is right that that treaty relates to nuclear weapons coming on to the base at Diego Garcia. That is why our emphasis must be on the strength of the relationship between our two countries when it comes to our national security—this House will not disagree on that—but it is deeply concerning that the President of the United States has explicitly expressed his disapproval of this entire process and this giveaway. To address the hon. Member’s point about the nuclear treaty, we should absolutely be engaging with our closest ally, the United States of America.

Arctic Security

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, as the Foreign Secretary, I take economic security issues immensely seriously. It is why we are strengthening the work around critical minerals and the economic security that comes from international supply chains. He will know that there are issues around critical national infrastructure that also underpin our economic security. This is taken immensely seriously right across the Government, including on the National Security Council.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your patience in getting us all in; it is much appreciated. I also thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. I agree that the sovereignty of Greenland is a matter for her own people, but I understand the dangers present, with the Russian threat and aggression. Rather than simply making statements of support for Greenland’s sovereignty, will the Foreign Secretary outline how we in this country, as close allies of the USA and as a nation that relies on the security of that area, will liaise with the USA and Greenland on enhancements of security and greater strategic facilitation, recognising that diplomacy is more than words but action, and actively seek solutions we can achieve?

[Yvette Cooper]

This is an important question to finish on, because the UK is proposing an new Arctic sentry as part of NATO. We already have a Baltic Sentry and an Eastern Sentry that pull together operations and co-ordination in a strategic way to look at the defence of those regions and how all NATO allies can pull together to support that. We believe the same is now needed for the Arctic. The Arctic is the gateway for the Russian northern fleet to threaten the whole of the transatlantic alliance. That is why we believe an Arctic sentry would be in everyone’s interests.

Iran: Protests

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am sure that the hon. Lady’s constituent is suffering great anguish, as are so many constituents who will be in correspondence with MPs from across the House. I cannot imagine how I would feel if my loved ones were in a situation in which communications were not certain. I feel it in relation to our consular cases, and I know that it is felt by people right across the country. We will do everything we can to ensure that the protesters are able to enjoy their rights and, indeed, that the communications restrictions are lifted. Iran was plunged into darkness on 8 January, just as Afghanistan plunged into darkness last year. This is a malign trend, which we oppose completely. We will do everything we can to see that the situation is temporary in Iran, as it proved to be in Afghanistan.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. He will be under no illusions about the barbaric tactics that are being employed in Iran; indeed, last week’s statement made it very clear that the Government are fully aware of them. The strongly worded condemnation has not brought about any change, and we have British citizens incarcerated and in danger. The IRGC’s forces have killed thousands. They have shot them in the head, neck and face, and the IRGC has had a “shoot to kill” policy. What discussions has the Minister had with the United States of America, which promised physical action, about ensuring the safety of our citizens and nation, protecting Iranian citizens from sustained terrorism, and showing Iran that its recent abhorrent actions will no longer be tolerated? Physical action against the IRGC, on the ground, is what is needed.

[Mr Falconer]

We have already discussed our attitude towards the protests. We are not threatening physical action against the IRGC in Tehran. We want the whole Iranian regime to respect the rights of their people, in accordance with international norms; to ensure that the protesters can exercise their rights; and to lift internet restrictions.

Proposed Chinese Embassy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member will not be surprised to hear me say that the decision on the embassy is an independent process, but I will just emphasise to him that the UK has a broad range of powers to counter foreign interference, including acts that amount to transnational repression, and it is important that we take that extremely seriously in government and across the House. On the Minister for Security’s announcement last year about the training and guidance on state threats that Counter Terrorism Policing had offered to all 45 territorial police forces across the UK, it is important that that training is taken up, and that frontline police officers and staff have an enhanced ability to identify state-directed crime and the actions that must be taken to mitigate it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answers. In last week’s urgent question on the Chinese embassy, I highlighted that while the consulate is entitled to facilities that enable its citizens to get consular help, the Chinese are not entitled to facilities that pose any type of threat to national security. The information provided this morning again demonstrates the potential for risk to our national security. Will the Minister take steps that are well within the Government’s power, act in the national interest, and make it clear that the consulate as proposed is not necessary for the carrying out of consulate functions, and is therefore not acceptable?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. It is important to emphasise again that national security is the first duty of Government, and we will always act to protect it.

Ukraine

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be accountability for those Russians who have carried out massacres and raped, violently tortured and killed people, and they must be taken to court and put in prison?

[Stephen Gethins]

Accountability is so important, as I know the hon. Gentleman and other Members agree.

On the local element, will the Minister say something about the 100-year agreement? I know that this place has an important role in the response to the war in Ukraine, but the message I received during my travels at the weekend was how important local-to-local solidarity is. Will he say something about the conversations that he has had with devolved Governments and local administrations on the 100-year agreement. Matters such as education are for those administrations, rather than the Government, and it is important to involve others going forward.

The most substantive issue is that we face a significant challenge in European security and have done for some years. The transatlantic relationship is not quite what it was—we must look to Canada in many ways. The common European approach to defending Ukraine, which is, after all, defending us, will be incredibly important. The Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), has been very thoughtful on these issues, and it would be good to hear his reflections on deepening that co-operation.

Over the weekend in Ukraine, I heard so many thank yous—we hear that so many times when we visit. But that is the wrong way around. We should be saying thank you to Ukraine from us all.

UK-France Relations

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK relations with France.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I have called this debate because we are at an important and promising moment in the UK-France relationship. It has been a bumpy few years. Brexit and its fallout placed the relationship under real strain. A couple of years ago, we had a Prime Minister unclear on whether the French President was friend or foe. But those days are behind us, and six months on from an extremely successful state visit and UK-France summit, the relationship is back on track. This, therefore, is the right moment for Parliament to recognise that fact and to take stock of how the relationship can serve both countries better. This relationship matters, not just for diplomatic niceties, but because so many of this Government’s core objectives depend on it: our security, our borders, our energy system, our economic growth and our standing in the world.

The UK-France relationship is not new; it is one of the longest continuous diplomatic relationships in the world. This year marks 1,000 years since the birth of William the Conqueror, and as a Scot I note with pride that last year was the 730th anniversary of the auld alliance, which Charles de Gaulle called

“the oldest alliance in the world”,

and which I was pleased to celebrate at St Giles’ cathedral in my constituency, along with the French community in Edinburgh. Seen from that perspective, the difficulties of the past decade are no more than bumps in the road, but they were real bumps, and it matters that we now mark their passing and recognise that the relationship is moving forward with purpose.

Let me begin with defence and security. The UK and France are Europe’s two nuclear powers and its two permanent members of the UN Security Council. Together, we account for roughly 40% of Europe’s defence spending and around half the continent’s military research and technology investment. Six months on from the state visit, Lancaster House 2.0 and the entente industrielle, our defence sectors—both public and private—are more deeply intertwined than ever. Our armed forces, our intelligence services and our defence industries operate not just in parallel but in partnership.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He talks about the relationship between the UK and France, and we have fought many battles against each other. However, we always remember that the last two battles we fought, we fought together, and we took on fascism across the world.

Does he agree that although the historical connection with France has perhaps always been one of friction, a symbiotic relationship has always existed and it must be built on in terms of cross-channel trade and relationships, but also immigration crossings. We have to address that issue, and the French need to resolve it in co-ordination with our national security requirements—the very thing the hon. Gentleman reminded us of in his last few words.

Academic Technology Approval Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Academic Technology Approval Scheme.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher; I wish you a happy new year, although we are probably in the dregs of when we can say that. I welcome the Minister for what I hope will be a constructive half-hour debate. I will start by briefly setting out what ATAS is, because if I have learned one thing in the last few months, it is that it has quite low salience—including, I regret to say, in the Foreign Office. If this debate achieves nothing else, I hope it resolves that.

ATAS, known properly as the academic technology approval scheme, is a system by which additional checks are carried out on international students and researchers of certain nationalities, or those working in security-related fields. It is clearly an incredibly important process, and one that exists in some form in most other countries where advanced research is taking place. ATAS checks are most commonly needed when individuals will be studying, researching or working in subject topics that could be used to develop advanced conventional military technology or weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.

There is an obvious reason why it is important to get ATAS right. The type of research that, in the wrong hands, could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction is also the type of research that is critical for making many non-military advancements. For example, biophysics research in molecular medicine involves groundbreaking discoveries in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases that can change the lives of millions of people. Creating novel chemical materials could revolutionise food packaging and how it is recycled.

We all know that we need better energy systems and sources. Buses now commonly run on hydrogen, a move that in Scotland, I am proud to say, was supported by experts in the school of chemistry at the University of St Andrews in my constituency. And then there is artificial intelligence. We know that it is having a huge impact on how we live our lives, and I want to ensure that the best and brightest are here in the UK working on it, ensuring that the development of AI includes the necessary guardrails to prevent its abuse. Those are just a few examples of research subjects that could require ATAS approval for an international student or academic.

My point is that if we want the UK to be a world leader in research and development, which is key to the Government’s modern industrial strategy, then we need to attract the brightest and the best. We cannot do that if the security checks needed to process their visas are not working.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for always bringing forward incredibly important subjects, both to Westminster Hall and on the Floor of the House. Universities back home, such as Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University, have many ATAS students and researchers who study in sensitive areas such as science, engineering and technology. Many of the funded research positions have been delayed or even unfilled due to ATAS processing times having a significant impact on the system. Does the hon. Lady agree that more must be done for clearance to be secured in a timely manner so that advantage can be taken of vital research postings?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

The hon. Member always manages to touch in advance on the key topics that we will raise in the debate, and timescales in relation to ATAS is certainly one of the things that I will touch on.

I turn to the time it takes for ATAS checks to be carried out. I am grateful that the Minister wrote to me last week confirming a standard timeframe of 30 working days—six weeks—to process applications. That seems quite reasonable for something technical that we clearly want to get right. The problem is that that response timescale is not exactly everyone’s experience. I have had casework for academics and students coming to the University of St Andrews with delays of up to six months, an experience that is shared by the Russell Group of universities, which reached out to me in advance of this debate.

Processing delays are not anything new, but there are a few elements that I want to pull out. Most postgraduate programmes of study and research programmes have defined start and end dates, which is particularly true when grant funding is being utilised. Missing those start dates due to ATAS delays means that research students miss the start of their course, and that research projects might need to delay their start dates or begin without key personnel. The University of St Andrews will not make a formal offer without ATAS being completed, and the student cannot apply for their visa without receiving a formal offer from the university. These are the different roadblocks on the way to getting approval.

Sir Christopher, can you imagine securing the funding for groundbreaking research and attracting the best global talent, only to find, days before the project is due to start, that you still do not know whether you can go ahead? You find yourself having to go back to the finance provider to ask for leniency and change contract dates and funding arrangements—all while worrying that the funding might ultimately be withdrawn. That could jeopardise your chances of receiving future support, or mean that the individual in question gives up on the process and secures employment elsewhere.

Although I am relieved to know from my conversations with the University of St Andrews that it has managed to deal with the stress of these concerns—but not the losses themselves—I have been told by the Russell Group about other universities that have experienced researchers and students withdrawing applications and going to other research-intensive nations instead, and about large research and development businesses withdrawing from university-led projects because they could not wait any longer for applications to be approved.

I therefore ask the Minister whether the 30-day standard period is a reasonable reflection of capacity. Would a 40 or even 50-day target perhaps be better? Then universities and applicants could plan accordingly. Could that be put into a formal, service-level agreement, so that universities, applicants and funding providers could manage expectations? There are naturally peaks to the number of applications for review over the summer, given that the academic cycle, even for non-taught research, tends to start in the autumn. Could the Government be taking steps to prepare for that? Could extra resources be put in place? I understand that the highly technical nature of the checks being carried out means that there is a need for scientific experts, who are already in high demand in Whitehall. Does the Minister feel that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has sufficient scientific capacity to meet demand? Is that something that engagement with the university sector and the specialists we have here could resolve?

I have mentioned casework, because for MPs that is a huge part of our job. Visa problems, Department for Work and Pensions issues and HM Revenue and Customs delays are the bread and butter of our inbox and the work that our constituency staff do. It is a question of trying to find out the problem and what can be done to unstick whatever is stuck. But frustratingly, we cannot do that with ATAS. There is just one email address, for use by universities, MPs, students or anyone else who needs to get in touch. I am not sure that I have ever received a response from it. I am not surprised—it must be absolutely inundated.

Surely there must be a better system. I would rather we did not have delays with visas or pensions, which my team have to chase up on constituents’ behalf, but this is at least something that we can do and that can give some answers as to why things are moving slowly and when an answer can be expected. Will the Minister look into an MP hotline for ATAS or a dedicated email address for use by registered universities? We can of course get in touch with the Home Office, as ATAS delays stop visas being processed, but this does not help at all, with UK Visas and Immigration officials left as in the dark as everyone else over the status of an ATAS check. Like us, all they can do is wait.

The opacity of the system was thrown into sharp relief for me towards the end of last year by one particular piece of casework. My constituent, an academic at the University of St Andrews, was applying for his visa to be renewed. This was all completely routine, but tragically, after his having submitted all the information and with the ATAS checks under way, his father unexpectedly took ill and passed away. He naturally wanted to travel home to Syria to see his family, pay his respects and, as the eldest son, arrange and play a part in his father’s funeral. He immediately contacted UKVI and asked for permission to travel.

The next developments, I understand, are outwith the remit of the Minister and are not why we are here today, but they are worth noting. There does not seem to be a Home Office exemption to allow time-limited bereavement travel, even where evidence of death has been provided; and the UKVI escalation process, while effective, is still slow in consideration of the cultural norms for burial soon after death in many countries.

All of that means that my constituent had missed his father’s funeral before any answers were received. He still wanted to return home to be with his family and pay his respects as soon as possible, and this is where we return to ATAS, because he was told that if he left the country, he would need to start his visa and ATAS applications all over again. That would require him to incur significant cost and uncertainty and risk serious disruption to his ongoing academic responsibilities. The only option, we were told by the Home Office, was to try to get his visa renewal through as quickly as possible. That left one big stumbling block: the inability to directly contact, chase or otherwise check in with ATAS over his security checks. This was without knowing how long the current waiting period was, and without ATAS having any guidance or grounds for expedition in compassionate circumstances.

My team are a pretty resourceful bunch, and they tried everything they could think of. They obviously emailed the public email address, and we wrote to the FCDO. We rang the FCDO helpline, and I was told on that phone call that the FCDO did not know what ATAS was and whether it was part of its remit. That is a bit worrying. When it was explained, we were told that surely this was the responsibility of the Home Office. It went on.

There is a positive ending in this case. Although my constituent missed the funeral and the initial mourning period, his checks did go through and his visa was renewed. He was able to see his mother and sister and pay his respects to his father. I am not convinced that anything done by my office—or indeed by me, because I did try to speak to a couple of FCDO Ministers in the House—did anything in that regard.

I know that the Minister will point out that in the end my constituent’s ATAS checks were done within the six-week processing window. It is true that this is not one of the cases of terrible delay that I referred to earlier, but it clearly demonstrates the need for escalation routes for MPs or sponsoring universities, transparent processing timeframes, and a compassionate travel route or other allowances for bereaved applicants—or at least knowledge of what the process can and should be and whether indeed it is possible at all. Above all, there should be some form of knowledge or oversight within the FCDO, given that nobody seemed to know that ATAS existed or was an FCDO responsibility.

Something called the academic technology approval scheme might sound incredibly dry, but I hope that this debate demonstrates that it is incredibly important. It is important for our industrial strategy, medical breakthroughs, securing our energy future, and supporting our universities and our security as a nation. It is also about people. These issues are not minor. Roughly a quarter of the University of St Andrews’s skilled worker visa applications last year involved ATAS checks, and a tenth of the ATAS students had their start days impacted. As proud as I am of the university, I know it is not the only top-level research centre in the UK. If we add up those figures, we are looking at thousands of delays and research projects impacted, as well as time and money lost. I hope that the Minister will set out how we can address these issues and bring ATAS and its processes into the light.

Nigeria: Freedom of Religion or Belief

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to lead this debate on Government support for freedom of religion or belief in Nigeria; I hope that we have some good debate. Recent events have thrown a spotlight on Nigeria in general, and on freedom of religion or belief in particular, so I hope that this debate can strengthen that spotlight.

One fact should make the scale of the challenge clear: more Christians are killed each year in Nigeria for being Christians than in all other countries combined. That is one reason why Nigeria is one of 10 focus countries in the first Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office freedom of religion or belief strategy, which I was pleased to launch last year. I declare an interest: I am the UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, or FORB, as I will refer to it from now on. I am committed to that strategy and to seeing Nigeria’s FORB improve in the coming years.

Fifteen years ago, I spent some time in Nigeria, and it was clear even then that persecution was a serious problem. I remember sitting in a hotel room in a very nice hotel in Abuja and hearing directly from a man whose wife had been brutally murdered by a mob in northern Nigeria—I am sad to say, burned to death—purely because she was a Christian. Let me reiterate: that was 15 years ago.

The FORB crisis in Nigeria is persistent and entrenched, with violence in the north and the middle belt a way of life for Christians, Hausa Muslims, those of traditional belief systems, humanists and others. Meanwhile, some federal state legal systems have been manipulated by some politicians and other public officials in order to impose so-called blasphemy and apostasy offences, despite section 38 of the Nigerian federal constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion and of conscience.

Nigeria’s FORB crisis is partly about violence, but it is also about legal suppression of freedoms at the state level, and it is a multi-faith crisis. While the majority of those affected are Christian, all FORB advocates know that persecution of one group invites persecution of others. Moderate Muslims, atheists, humanists and practitioners of traditional religions are all suffering in Nigeria for what they believe.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. The Government have made an excellent choice of him as their envoy, and God has chosen him for that position, which is more important than anything. Is he aware of the findings of the Global Christian Relief red list 2026, which identifies the top five persecutors of Christians worldwide? One of them is Nigeria. The Minister is an honourable man who addresses our issues. Does he agree that the UK Government must use their diplomatic engagement, development assistance and security co-operation to press for improved civilian protection, accountability for perpetrators and the defence of freedom of religion or belief for all Nigerians, whatever their faith may be?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw other factors into the equation, whether it is competition over land in the middle belt of Nigeria, the climate change that leads to it, or other forms of identitarian conflict and competition for resources. Those things are true, without question. In my estimation it is also true that there is a specifically religious dimension, and at times a political dimension, to the persecution—I would say it can be both at the same time.

I am concerned that this can lead to a slippery slope. For example, we could compare it with the situation in China, where Tibetan Buddhists have been persecuted for years. That was later followed by a crackdown on Falun Gong and Christians, and religious prisoners ultimately end up joined by journalists, activists, trade unionists and other rabble rousers who the state would prefer not to deal with. We must robustly defend freedom of religion or belief, to avoid that slippery slope.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[David Smith]

I will make a little progress, as I want to ensure that the Minister has time to respond.

The Government are doing some great things that I get to see and making a great deal of progress. We will hear from the Minister, but in my estimation the Government are supporting security work in Nigeria, working closely with the Nigerian Government, including on the SPRiNG—Strengthening Peace and Resilience in Nigeria—programme, which I hope we will hear more about, and building a sense of communal interfaith relationship and peace building—something I did in the past in a different context. That is really important, and I would love to hear more from the Minister about what that could look like if we grow it more.