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.

Myanmar: Religious Minority Persecution

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered religious minority persecution in Myanmar. 

This is something that has been on my mind, and the mind of lots of us, for some time. We may not know very much about Myanmar in relation to religious persecution, but I am glad to see my friend and colleague in the Gallery who, along with Rev. Cecil Rasa, told us all about what was happening.

This debate has also been some time coming. There has been great interest from many hon. Members in holding Backbench Business debates, so it has taken until now for us to have this opportunity, but I am very pleased to have it and I thank the Backbench Business Committee. It is indeed an honour to introduce this debate on Myanmar and to speak once again for those whose voices are silenced by violence, repression and fear. We will hear some of the things—hopefully others will contribute as well—that relate to just how bad the situation is in Myanmar.

I speak today because freedom of religion or belief is not a peripheral concern; it is a foundational human right. When freedom of religion or belief collapses, other rights collapse alongside it: freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, access to justice and, ultimately, the right to life itself. Myanmar today is a stark example of that truth. Since the military coup of February 2021, religious freedom in Myanmar has continued to worsen amid civil war.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing today’s debate on Myanmar, because religious and ethnic minorities there are facing some of the harshest persecution. He will no doubt be aware that Christian communities have seen their churches destroyed, their clergy imprisoned and aid blocked, and that long-persecuted Muslim communities such as the Rohingya and the Uyghurs remain stateless, are severely restricted in their movements and face further persecution. Does he agree that international condemnation, co-ordination and action are urgently needed to protect those vulnerable groups?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend—he has been my friend for all the time I have known him—for his intervention. He is absolutely right, and he has outlined, in those two or three sentences, what this debate is all about. It is an opportunity to highlight religious minorities and persecution, with a focus on Myanmar.

Independent monitoring by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom documents the destruction and occupation of religious sites, the killing of clergy and civilians, and the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid by the military authorities. Churches, mosques and monasteries have been affected by airstrikes, shelling and arson. In some cases, places of worship have been occupied or used by troops, turning sites of prayer into military targets. Aid convoys have been blocked or prohibited, even in areas of acute need. Religious leaders have been detained and harassed.

I know there are many issues demanding the attention of this House, and there has just been a debate in the main Chamber about the same thing, but I often think of Galatians 6:9, which urges us not to grow weary in doing good, for in due season we will reap if we diligently sow. The Bible very clearly gives us a challenge—indeed, it is a directive—about what we should do. We must not allow Myanmar to become a forgotten crisis, where atrocities continue in plain sight. We must continue to do what we can to help the vulnerable and the needy, and there are many of them.

The junta’s violence is nationwide, but its impact is especially severe on minority communities and on religious life itself. The USCIRF reports that over 3.4 million people have been displaced in recent years. That includes some 90,000 people displaced in Christian-majority Chin state, and around 237,200 in Kachin state. Alongside this internal displacement, around 1 million Rohingya refugees remain in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh, living in prolonged exile, with absolutely no indication of when they will be able to return. That is one of the things we should look at today. I should have said that I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place. I always look forward to the Minister’s response. I wish her well in her role, and I look forward to her replies to our questions.

Those figures are not abstract. They represent families torn from their homes, congregations scattered, and communities unable to gather safely to worship. For many, the simple act of practising their faith has become a source of danger. This is not only a freedom of religion or belief issue viewed in isolation; it sits within a much wider framework of state violence. UN-linked reporting has documented systematic torture by Myanmar’s security forces, including cases involving children, as well as sexual abuse and sexual attacks on women and girls. I do not know whether it is my age, but I certainly get more affected by the things happening in the world than I ever did before. It is almost inconceivable to comprehend all the horror taking place.

It is important to note that FoRB violations in Myanmar are part of a broader pattern of repression and brutality. They are not isolated incidents. The plight of the Rohingya Muslims remains one of the gravest examples of this persecution. UN fact finders concluded that there were grounds to investigate senior Tatmadaw leaders for genocide and other international crimes, and they explicitly called for criminal investigation and prosecution. Can the Minister confirm whether she is aware of a criminal investigation taking place? Are there grounds for prosecution? Obviously, that would all be built on evidence, but has that started?

Crucially, this issue did not begin and end in 2017. Amnesty International has described a state-sponsored system of apartheid in Rakhine state marked by institutional discrimination, segregation and extreme restrictions on movement and daily life. Rohingya communities are confined, controlled and denied access to basic services. A people stripped of citizenship, boxed in by policy, and punished for trying to move—this is not merely insecurity; it is engineered oppression.

Christian communities have also suffered targeted attacks, particularly in Chin, Kachin and Karenni areas. The USCIRF documents repeated attacks on churches and confirms that the military has destroyed religious buildings and killed clergy and civilians through airstrikes and arson. The USCIRF further reports that at least 128 religious persons have been detained by the authorities, including 113 Buddhist monks, one imam and 14 Christians. These are not random arrests. They reflect a deliberate effort to intimidate religious leadership and community life. There are many examples, but one case in particular brings this into sharp focus: Rev. Hkalam Samson of the Kachin Baptist Convention—a respected Christian leader who is much loved in his area—was arrested, granted amnesty, and then re-arrested within hours. This is injustice. It is harassment, designed to send a message that no religious leader is beyond reach—no religious leader is safe.

More broadly, independent monitoring documents attacks and intimidation affecting multiple faith communities in churches, mosques and monasteries, and across several regions and states. When places of worship themselves become targets, freedom of religion or belief ceases to exist in any meaningful sense in the area—not just for the places of worship themselves, but for the practising Christians, Rohingya Muslims and people of other faiths as well.

We must also be clear about why these abuses occur. Many analysts argue that the Tatmadaw has long instrumentalised race and religion narratives to legitimise repression. It is beyond dispute that independent monitoring documents repeated targeting of religious leaders and religious sites across communities, reflecting persecution linked to identity rather than military necessity. They are being targeted because of who they are—because of their religious beliefs.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. I have come along to learn more about the situation, which is, frankly, puzzling. Is the regime motivated by some form of extreme religion of its own? Is it just ultra-nationalism? Is it doing all this persecution to repress the people and keep them in a form of captivity, or to drive people whom it does not like because of their identity out of the country completely?

[Jim Shannon]

As always, the right hon. Member brings wisdom to the debate. He is right to highlight that the Tatmadaw and the authorities are using people’s religion and race as reasons to legitimise repression. As far as they are concerned, they do not want people to have anything, and by focusing on those things, they take away the very right to express religious belief—to have a race, a different culture and a different history.

Another root cause is Myanmar’s discriminatory legal architecture, particularly its citizenship regime, which probably highlights the very point that the right hon. Member just referred to. The 1982 citizenship law embeds exclusion by tying full citizenship to state-defined nationality categories and strict criteria, while granting wide discretion over who qualifies—in other words, it directly discriminates. Amnesty International documents how this framework has left most Rohingya without full citizenship rights, despite generations of residence in Rakhine state.

Citizenship denial is not symbolic; it is operational. Amnesty shows how exclusion from citizenship underpins restrictions on freedom of movement, access to education, healthcare, participation in public life and legal protection. It forms the backbone of the apartheid-like system imposed on Rohingya communities. Amnesty also documents how temporary registration cards, often known as “white cards”, were revoked, leaving many Rohingya without identity documentation linked to rights or political participation—even further entrenching their vulnerability.

This is not an accident of bureaucracy. When a state writes exclusion into its citizenship law, it builds persecution into the legal system itself—and that is how it pursues its goals. Impunity compounds all of this. The military’s long history of avoiding accountability encourages repetition. Atrocities become a tactic, not an aberration. UN fact-finding missions have emphasised the need for criminal investigation and prosecution, yet meaningful accountability remains elusive.

There are also factors that worsen and sustain this crisis. UN investigators have highlighted the role of social media, particularly Facebook, in spreading hate speech and incitement against the Rohingya. That does not absolve the state of responsibility, but it shows how hatred has been amplified and normalised. Doing it so often means that it becomes a way of life that focuses on those who are in a religious minority.

Of course, we cannot point fingers outwards and not look internally. International action also plays a role. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned Myanmar in the main Chamber debate and referred to the Magnitsky sanctions that need to be in place for some of the Myanmar leaders. With great respect, the Government—this has been going on for a number of years, so it is not just this Government, but previous ones—have not pursued those involved in horrendous things in Myanmar, but they should have.

When decisive multilateral action stalls, the junta itself can outlast condemnation. Annual monitoring shows that detention, attacks on religious sites and the obstruction of aid continues despite years of international concern. Humanitarian obstruction remains a central tool of control. The USCIRF states that the military has blocked or prohibited critical aid from reaching displaced people, worsening their suffering and vulnerability —especially for minorities. All my life I have said that if a person is denied their human rights, they are also denied their religious viewpoint, and if they are denied their religious viewpoint, their human rights are also denied.

The question is: what should be done and what can realistically be done? We cannot solve all the problems of the world—if only we could—but the bit that we can do, we should do. In the immediate term, civilians and places of worship must be protected. Humanitarian aid must be allowed to reach those in need. I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm where, or if, that is happening. I ask that the Foreign Office tie the substantial funding that we give to Myanmar to the principle of freedom of religion or belief. The UK has provided over £190 million for aid, healthcare and civil society since the 2021 coup, including some £66.45 million in the financial year 2024-25 alone. That was boosted by £10 million for the 2025 earthquake, with further funds for the refugee crisis—always with enhanced due diligence to avoid the military regime benefiting. We must leverage our goodness to them and ensure their goodness to their own.

In the medium term, the international community must constrain the junta’s capacity to wage war, including through air power, and strengthen evidence gathering and accountability mechanisms. Those who carry out abysmal and despicable crimes need to be made accountable, and the evidence needs to be gathered and made ready so that we can at some stage hold them accountable. Diplomacy can be a mighty tool and I believe that we can do more.

In the long term, there can be no durable peace without an inclusive settlement in which citizenship and equality are restored—especially for the Rohingya—so that freedom of religion or belief is protected by law, not dependent on good will or military discretion. For many years, the House has repeatedly raised concerns about freedom of religion or belief and wider human rights abuses in Myanmar. The question now is whether our actions match the scale of the crisis.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, will the Government commit to regular, published assessments of freedom of religion or belief and human rights in Myanmar, using independent monitoring benchmarks? It is really important that we have an independent body that is able to assess what is happening in Myanmar specifically. Through that, we will be able to gauge whether persecution is decreasing, or if there is any more action that we could take.

Secondly, what further steps will the UK take with allies to constrain the junta’s capacity for attacks that destroy religious sites and kill civilians? The air force has been used to bomb and kill, and to destroy churches and even hospitals and schools—nothing is ruled out in the junta’s attacks. Something really needs to be done to ensure that they stop.

Thirdly, how will the Government ensure that humanitarian aid reaches displaced minorities when the military deliberately blocks assistance? We know evidentially that whenever aid was sent from here to Myanmar, the military blocked it, put obstacles in its way and ensured that assistance did not get to the people that it should have.

Fourthly, what additional support will be provided to the accountability pathways identified by UN fact-finding work on genocide and other international crimes? I would love to have the people who have carried out these crimes made accountable in the court of this world, and then jailed accordingly. I am a Christian; I know that whenever they come to the next world, they will be accountable then. We all know where they will end up: they will end up in a place that is very warm—in hell. Still, I would love to see them get their justice in this world, just as they will get their justice in the next—I know that is going to happen, no matter what.

Myanmar’s crisis is not only political. It is a crisis of conscience, where identity is punished, worship is targeted, and the law itself—as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said—is used as a weapon. This House must continue to speak clearly, consistently and persistently for those who cannot. Let us not be weary in doing good, and let us do what we can in Myanmar. I believe that with renewed focus, we can reap a harvest of freedom for those living in fear in that place. Our job today is to speak for them. They have no voice; today, we are their voice.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and powerful contributions.

As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), said, there has been real consensus across the House today. With the continuing horror of the situation in Myanmar, it is important that we have a strong sense of our responsibilities in the international community. Given Britain’s history with Burma, we must do all we can to support Myanmar to move forward to a more positive future and to keep hope alive.

The persecution of religious minorities and the freedom of religion and belief are important areas that go across the work of the Foreign Office. Indeed, earlier this week I met our special envoy for freedom of religion or belief to talk about the overall strategy, and why it is so important that we uphold these values and continue to be champions for freedom of religion or belief across the world. I will respond to as many as possible of the points that have been raised today, but first I will make a few opening points.

First, religious persecution in Myanmar is a grave violation of fundamental human rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) powerfully stated, we must speak with one voice in condemning these injustices and must work together to ensure accountability and protection for the most vulnerable, so let me say that the UK remains steadfast in its commitment to defending the freedom of religion and belief for all. As hon. Members have rightly highlighted, Myanmar’s religious minorities have faced decades of persecution, from discriminatory laws such as the 1982 citizenship law to long-standing restrictions on worship, on movement and on citizenship. Indeed, since the coup in 2021, religious freedoms have deteriorated even further. This debate has raised the issues of attacks on religious sites, confiscations of places of worship, widespread destruction, families torn apart and communities displaced.

The regime continues to exploit religious tensions, particularly in southern Shan and Rakhine, where ethnoreligious nationalism fuels hostility, particularly towards Christian and Muslim minorities. We are also seeing the military weaponising online spaces to spread hate. The UN’s independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar has highlighted how disinformation has driven identity-based violence, including against the Rohingya, as the hon. Member for Strangford has referred to. For the first time, we have seen brutal violations taking place in predominantly Buddhist regions. Sagaing is now one of the hardest-hit areas, facing daily airstrikes, village burnings and mass displacement.

In the face of those challenges, I want to address some of the points that were raised in the debate, particularly around the support we are giving. It is the case that, in the light of unprecedented global humanitarian need and the current fiscal situation, the UK has adjusted its annual official development assistance allocations. However, the plight of those in need and fleeing Myanmar remains a UK priority.

In 2024-25, the UK increased humanitarian support to Myanmar to £66.5 million, and the UK is providing £80 million this financial year. This year, as we provide that £80 million in lifesaving humanitarian assistance, we are supporting emergency healthcare and education for the most vulnerable. We are also working very closely with faith-based organisations, which are trusted actors with deep community ties that are often first on the scene in crises.

UK-funded education initiatives are helping to make schools more inclusive by supporting minority languages and cultures, so that every child feels able to learn. It is important to reiterate the point that no UK aid goes to the Myanmar military. This year, through the John Bunyan fund, we have supported organisations that tackle hate speech, misinformation and online harms that drive discrimination and violence. We have also trained religious and community leaders to challenge harmful narratives, strengthen civil society and develop practical tools to help communities respond.

[Jim Shannon]

Just one thing to confirm, Minister, and I think it is something that each and every one of us who has spoken has raised: we have all highlighted the issue that the aid the Government are sending to Myanmar is not getting to the refugees, that the junta—the military—is stopping it and is an obstacle to it getting there. We are all seeking an assurance that the aid will get to the refugees, which is where it is needed, and that the junta will not try to stop it. Please.

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member is right to highlight what the junta continues to try to do. That is why it is incredibly important that we are continuing to work to make sure that humanitarian aid is not prevented from reaching where it needs to go. It is also why it is so important that we continue to work with local organisations and actors on the ground, so that we are able, as much as possible, to reach the frontline through trusted organisations with deep community ties. I am happy to continue dialogue with the hon. Member on how we are working in Myanmar on these very difficult challenges.

I also want to mention the incredibly important role that Bangladesh is playing, and to commend Bangladesh for the accommodation of 1 million refugees. We know the challenge that has been. The UK is the second largest donor to the Rohingya crisis response in Bangladesh, contributing £447 million since 2017, including an additional £27 million announced in September, just a few months ago.

My colleague Baroness Chapman was fairly recently in Bangladesh, talking to the Government, visiting Cox’s Bazar and looking at what more can be done to support further skills development and other productive activity for those in the refugee camps. She also looked at how we can keep alive the hope that it will one day be safe for return, and how we continue to work as an international community towards that future.

Over 150,000 Rohingya in Myanmar, however, have been confined to camps for over a decade, with no freedom of movement, no civil liberties and limited access to services. Since 2017, the UK has provided £57 million in assistance to Rohingya communities in Rakhine, delivering water, food, cash, sanitation and health support. We continue to press the regime to stop attacks on communities and places of worship.

Sanctions have been raised by a number of colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), who I want to thank for catching me in the House in relation to this issue. Since the coup, we have imposed sanctions on 25 individuals and 39 entities, including those responsible for human rights violations. We are using our role at the United Nations Security Council to keep this firmly on the agenda. At our last meeting, we condemned attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure.

We also continue to keep all evidence and potential designations under close review. It would not be appropriate to speculate in this debate about potential future sanctions and designations, as to do so could reduce their impact. However, I say to my hon. Friend and other Members that we are clear that sanctions remain an important tool to maintain pressure on the Myanmar military. Since the coup, the sanctions that I mentioned have targeted the regime’s access to finance, arms and equipment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I am concerned about time, so I will continue my remarks.

We continue to raise discrimination against minority communities at the UN Human Rights Council. We also know that pressure alone is not enough, and that there must be accountability, which is essential for breaking the cycle of impunity and violence. That is why the UK has provided over £900,000 to the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar to collect and preserve evidence for future prosecutions. We have also established the Myanmar witness project to verify open-source evidence, and to train civil society organisations to do the same. We will go on to advocate for increased protections for minority groups, and for inclusivity, with opposition actors. That remains critical for a future transition out of conflict, and it is key to delivering the aspirations of the people of Myanmar.

I want to make a couple of remarks. First, in relation to criminal investigations, which the hon. Member for Strangford referenced, the UK is clear that there must be accountability for atrocities committed in Myanmar. We condemn ongoing serious human rights violations by the military regime, and those actions require further scrutiny. The UK is supportive of any attempts to bring those issues before the ICC. We support the prosecutor’s initiative to investigate these acts. It remains our assessment that there is not sufficient support among United Nations Security Council members for an ICC referral, but as penholder on Myanmar at the United Nations Security Council we convened five meetings in 2025 and will continue to maintain international focus on the crisis.

In 2025, the UK submitted written observations to the ICJ in the case brought by Gambia against Myanmar for alleged breaches of the genocide convention, alongside Canada, the Netherlands, France, Germany and Denmark. It remains the UK’s position that a determination of genocide should be made by a competent court or tribunal. The UK’s intervention at the ICJ presents legal arguments regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the genocide convention, and we are closely monitoring these proceedings, which begin on Monday. We reaffirm our commitment to accountability and to the international legal order. We also stress the Court’s vital role in the peaceful settlement of disputes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, including those who have now left. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), as always, very clearly highlighted the issue of the Rohingya Muslims; the fragile peace, if it is such a thing as peace; and the fragile conditions in which they live.

We all look forward to contributions from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), because they are always very applicable to the issues. His question was who is behind this and what their purpose is. Quite clearly, the junta is focusing on race and religious beliefs.

It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) in her place. I thank her for her well-known interest in the issue. We can almost see how de-stressed she is as a result of not being the Minister any more, but we very much welcome her contribution. She referred to the need for sanctions, and I will come to that point in a wee minute.

The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) voiced the intelligent thought that the junta is holding power through fear, propped up by others outside. A really important question, which may have been raised in the intervention from the right hon. Member for New Forest East, is “If the junta falters, do we step in or does somebody else?” If the Minister does not mind, perhaps she could come back to us on that point.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) told me earlier today about his particular interest in the subject. We thank him for his contribution and his interest for all those years as a Labour party member. He referred to the fact that the elections will not be free or democratic, and to the need for sanctions.

My good friend the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara), who brings great knowledge of the world to these debates, referred to sexual violence. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) spoke about mass killing and economic collapse. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), put things very clearly in his contribution and referred to perpetrators being made accountable.

My very last ask is whether the Government will commit to publishing regular assessments of freedom of religious belief and human rights in Myanmar, using independent monitoring—I think we need an independent person to do that. Once again, I thank the Minister and everyone else for their contributions.

Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

If I keep giving way, I will end up losing time. But I will give way.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is right to bring this issue forward. Some 229 people have designated by the United Kingdom, and 3,000 Russians have been designated after the invasion of Ukraine. However, weak enforcement risks hollowing out the regime. To date, no fines have been imposed for breaches of the UK’s Magnitsky-style sanctions. If this House is serious about protecting life and dignity, we must ensure that these tools are used consistently and enforced credibly. I am often reminded of the example of Jesus Christ, the greatest leader and yet the greatest servant. He protected lives by giving his own. We, as leaders, should echo his example by diligently helping those who cannot help themselves.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely right. It is important to get justice and to make sure that others who would be tempted to go down that road realise there will be real penalties to pay.

Rights of Women and Girls: Afghanistan

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to bring forward this debate on Government support for the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan because, put simply, the situation for women and girls there is catastrophic. As Human Rights Watch has said, it is

“the most serious women’s rights crisis in the world.”

Since coming to power in 2021, the Taliban have launched an all-out attack on women, systematically stripping away the economic, political and social rights of millions of women and girls. Today, I will speak about what this means in practice, and how the UK Government can support women and girls in Afghanistan.

To start, I pay tribute to Afghan women, who, despite everything they endure, continue to fight for their rights, both in Afghanistan and from overseas. Their hope rings true in a young woman—let us call her Naila—whose right to finish her degree was stolen by the Taliban. She said,

“In the deep silence, something inside me refuses to break. In the darkness I have held on to my dreams, like small candles in my hands, protecting the fragile flames from the wind. I write in my secret notebook, whisper my dreams to the night sky and promise myself that one day, the world will hear Afghan girls again.”

However, I have heard from many Afghan women that they feel that the world has simply forgotten them. We must be clear that we stand with them, so let us ask today what more we can do—both the Government and we parliamentarians—to support women and girls in Afghanistan.

Some people might ask why I have chosen to speak about this topic. Why, with so much live conflict across the world, should we care about this issue today? Because not only is the erasure of women’s and girls’ rights in Afghanistan wrong, but if we do not stand with Afghan women and girls—if the world tolerates this erasure of their rights—we are sending a message that the rights of women and girls everywhere are up for negotiation. We are sending a message that the world does not care enough, and that we will turn a blind eye when half our population are under threat. That is a message that I refuse to send, and I hope it is one that this whole House refuses to send. If we care about women’s rights anywhere, we must care about women’s rights in Afghanistan. As Fawzia Koofi, an Afghan politician and former Deputy Speaker of the Afghan Parliament, said recently before the International Development Committee,

“Today, millions of girls in Afghanistan’s hopes are stripped away from them. It is not only us. We are the frontline defenders of this…It can reach anywhere, any country.”

Let me turn to the situation on the ground. The dystopian fantasy played out in many films and much fiction is a real-world nightmare in Afghanistan. The rights of women and girls are being systematically erased, alongside their presence in public life; they have no right to education post primary school, no right to employment, and no right to travel by themselves. Of course, before the Taliban took power, there were huge challenges, with Afghanistan ranked among the lowest countries in the world for gender equality. However, there had also been hard-won gains, which are being systematically undone, one by one, under the cruel hand of the Taliban.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate to the House. I spoke to her beforehand, just to give her an idea of what I was thinking about. As of late 2025, over 37,200 people from Afghanistan have been resettled in the UK through Government-sponsored schemes—specialised, safe and legal routes—including the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. Targeting demographics is crucial, and we must do more to ensure that such schemes focus specifically on vulnerable groups, especially women. Does the hon. Lady agree with me and others that there is more we can do, through resettlement, to protect women and girls, by creating safe and legal pathways to ensure their safety from the Taliban?

[Alice Macdonald]

I thank the hon. Member for that important point. He is right. The Government have set out new proposals on immigration that have a focus on safe routes, and it is important that we stand with female human rights defenders from Afghanistan. Many of them came over here before there were those routes. It was not easy for them, and many people worked incredibly hard to make that happen. I hope that we can have safer passages, and that it can be much clearer how they can be accessed.

Middle East and North Africa

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I was deeply moved to meet the injured Gazan children with my hon. Friend. As I said during that meeting, it is vital that we ensure that children in Gaza have access to the healthcare that they need. It is vital that the supplies to provide that healthcare can get into Gaza. It is in most cases going to be more appropriate that children who currently have to leave Gaza to get medical assistance are provided with that assistance in the region, but there clearly are specialised cases where the UK can make a real contribution. We continue to look at that and I will return to the House shortly on it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his detailed statement; it is much appreciated by all of us in this House who have a very deep interest in human rights—we know his heart is in it and we appreciate and thank him for that. Iran is in the throes of street protests over the price of, and access to, food, with 31 people killed. Women and girls are denied basic human rights, and for years Christians, Baha’is, Shi’as, Sunnis and many other religious groups have been directly abused and murdered, with churches destroyed. Religious groups have been denied access to education, health, jobs and property, and even the right to have their own burials of their co-religionists and their own graveyards. It is truly time, I believe, to step up all actions to protect these religious groups in Iran and to provide the freedom that Iranian people desire. What can be done with the Iranian Government in exile to deliver freedom, liberty and democracy, and the secular and non-nuclear republic that all Iranians desire?

[Mr Falconer]

Alongside many of our international partners, we set out a statement covering a range of rights-based issues at the UN General Assembly Third Committee in November. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are important rights for which we will continue to advocate across the world.

Venezuela

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Jim Shannon to ask the final question on this statement.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I definitely have the strongest legs in this Chamber—I have been bobbing for over three hours.

I thank the Secretary of State very much for her statement and her strong commitment, but will she further outline what support we can offer our US allies to ensure that democracy is restored—or indeed created—in Venezuela? That nation has great potential to do so much good. Further, what support can our UK Government offer to secure the daily needs of so many young people who have been ignored for many years and left in poverty for far too long?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the future of Venezuela and the future for the Venezuelan people, including young people who have been pushed into hardship and poverty by the corruption and criminality of the regime. There is now an opportunity, but it is very fragile. We have to ensure that we support stability in Venezuela and the transition to democracy, which is crucial. Those are the points we will continue to make as part of our discussions with the US, and that is the work that our embassy will continue to do on the ground.

Africa: New Approach

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question—obscured by Shakira lyrics—and makes an important point. It is indisputable that China has put more financial resources into Africa in recent years than in any period before. However, what we hear from many African Governments and African people is that they are wary of some of the conditionality that comes with that investment, and the debt to which he referred. We are seeking a partnership that is respectful and can help African Governments address those issues. Where private sector investment is available from the UK, that is what we are working to support, including through trade envoys such as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), who spoke earlier.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his answers and recognise his intent and that of the Government to try to help in whatever way they can. For centuries, churches and faith groups have sent missionaries to Africa. I think of the Samaritan’s Purse charity, which works across Africa and the middle east. I also think of many churches from Ards and Strangford, such as the Elim church and missions who go to Swaziland—Eswatini—and have built schools, clinics and hospitals. They have also brought farm implements and introduced modern farming practices to feed the people. In the past, I have highlighted the key role that church missions could play. Is it not about time to work with churches and make those partnerships work for Africa and its people?

[Mr Falconer]

I appreciate the question. In my own time overseas, and indeed in Africa, I saw the vital work that church groups do. It was the bishops in South Sudan who performed some of the most important peace mediation work. Just last night I met Christian groups operating in the Holy Land as well. We are conscious of the vital work done by faith communities in Africa and across the world, and freedom of religious belief and partnership with groups of all denominations is important to the Government.