Commonwealth Day

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to participate in today’s debate on Commonwealth Day, and I thank all hon. Members who have made contributions with salient points, as we reflect, celebrate, remember and enjoy the day.

I have great pride in this nation; I love this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as we all do. We rejoice in the role it has played in bringing together four nations in this Commonwealth as one. As we look to the coronation of King Charles, it inevitably brings to mind the life and legacy of Elizabeth, the great and faithful. One of her greatest achievements was not only her faith in action that honoured God and inspired nations, but the Commonwealth of nations, which was her pride and ours.

The Commonwealth is a cultural, historical and family organisation, which we love. It is like a gathering of the clans, if that is the right terminology to use, whenever the Commonwealth comes together. What joy it brings to us all that, from this nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Commonwealth grew. The tenets of democracy, liberty, freedom and faith have been espoused by the Commonwealth across the world.

We have heard recent attacks on the legacy of the Commonwealth from sources who should know better, and that wilful misdirection must be challenged. I thank the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge) for raising the subject and allowing the opportunity to debate the truth, rather than the devious innuendo that platforms seem able to stream with no impugnment or accountability. I want to put on record the full nature of Her Majesty, who said, when she talked of her duty:

“My whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.”

The great family to which she referred was the Commonwealth of nations—a group of 53 distinct and unique nations, whose common ground enabled the fostering of trust and the building of a relationship from which we all benefit.

A glance at the basic Commonwealth statistics online quickly outlines the many benefits. Some are financial benefits, but they are important and maintain the stability of nations. Of the 53 Commonwealth members, 31 are small states, mostly with populations of well under 2 million. Member countries have successfully obtained more than 1.8 million square kilometres of seabed through the United Nations, with our assistance, and more is still to be claimed.

More than 60 countries, including 15 non-Commonwealth countries, have benefited from our debt management programme. Our software helps to manage more than $2.5 trillion of debt globally. The combined gross domestic product of Commonwealth member countries was estimated to be $14 trillion by 2020. Trade in goods and services between Commonwealth members is estimated to be more than $680 billion, and it is predicted to surpass $1 trillion. The trade, economic ties and benefits from trade and cultural exchanges are important for countries’ future.

Commonwealth members’ combined exports of goods and services are valued at $3.4 trillion, which is about 15% of the world’s total exports. Intra-Commonwealth flows of remittances are estimated to be $45 billion, of which $42 billion went to developing countries. The most innovative economies in sub-Saharan Africa —eight of the top 10—are Commonwealth member countries. Those are all indications of the importance of Commonwealth trading to world exports and trade. Five of the best performing 15 countries in the youth development index are Commonwealth members. It is about that interconnection, that acknowledgment of each other and the fairness that arises from trade within the Commonwealth. That speaks to me not of a boys’ club, but of a community engaged in mutually beneficial sharing of information, training and trading. We should be incredibly grateful to Her Majesty for that, and for everything that she did over the years.

The Commonwealth games offer countries such as Northern Ireland, with 1.9 million people, an opportunity to contribute to the Commonwealth medal tally. At the last games, we did so in sports including boxing, bowls and swimming, and some of the winners were people from my constituency. I am thinking of Barry McClements, who won the bronze. That wee boy, who was disabled as a child when he lost his leg from the knee down, managed to achieve a bronze medal in the Paralympics. That has made that young man, and his interaction with other Commonwealth countries is something we cannot ignore. By their very nature, the Commonwealth games bring us together to participate. We are united through the Commonwealth and a love of sport, but the games also give smaller countries, such as mine, the chance to excel—and, boy, did we excel last time, like never before.

Every Commonwealth nation has the ability to leave as they determine; we do not operate like the EU, with rules and penalties for daring to step aside. Yet the fact is that each nation is content. Just as Scripture says that two is better than one, it follows that 53 must be even better.

Saudi Arabia’s Execution of Hussein Abo al-Kheir

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

I do not think that we can usefully speculate about that— the intent of the use of that. It is useless to speculate. But we do continue to engage to argue against the use of the death penalty. That is our long-standing position and we continue to make that point to our interlocutors.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his responses to the questions. In 2015, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, publicly called on the Saudi Arabian authorities to prevent the execution of a child defendant called Ali al-Nimr. Ali at that time was spared the death penalty and was released in 2021. Intervention on that occasion worked well and saved a life. Since 2015, the UK Government—I say this very respectfully—have failed to speak out publicly about similar cases. Can the Minister confirm whether there has been a change of policy not to raise these cases publicly?

Relations with China: Xi Jinping Presidency

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of relations with China during the presidency of Xi Jinping.

I place on the record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. It was put in for at short notice; we wanted to do it as quickly as we could, so we thank the Committee for agreeing to it. It is important that we have the opportunity to discuss the last 10 years under China’s leader, Xi Jinping, and how his time in office has seen a drastic rise in nefarious activities inside and outside China, many of which have been used to attack human rights, freedom of speech and media, and freedom of religion and belief. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. That topic is very close to my heart. It is one of the reasons why I am here and it is ultimately and initially the reason why I asked for this debate.

We speak up for those with a Christian faith across the world, for those with other faiths and, indeed, for those with no faith, so I am pleased to see right hon. and hon. Members here today, to see the shadow spokespersons and to see the Minister in his place. When it comes to speaking up for freedom of religion and belief in China, we could write a book on the number of occasions when China has disregarded it, has discriminated, has persecuted and has used actions that are illegal in any democratic society against those of Christian faith and, indeed, other faith. I am speaking here of the genocide of Uyghurs in Xinjiang., which the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and others in the House and here today have brought to the attention of MPs on regular occasions.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

It is reported that, in its efforts to control the Uyghur population, the Chinese Communist party has forced Uyghur women to marry Han Chinese men, to have abortions and to repress their Uyghur culture and religion. Does the hon. Member agree that Ministers must recognise the plight of the Uyghur people, and the Uyghur tribunal’s finding that they have been subject to a genocide?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The disgraceful and quite illegal treatment of the Uyghurs in China has disturbed us and put a burden on our hearts for them. We cannot understand how any country that espouses freedom—as China likes to say it does whenever it does the very opposite—can act in that way. The forced sterilisation of women, the abuse of women, the imprisonment of millions of Uyghurs in camps and the taking away of their religious liberty and their right to express themselves concern us greatly, so the hon. Lady is right to highlight that matter and to ensure that we have the opportunity to understand it.

The crackdown in Hong Kong is another issue. We watched as we handed over Hong Kong to the Chinese. The Chinese made lots of assertions that they would ensure that freedom was maintained, and for a short period it was, but things have gone downhill over the past few years, and China is cracking down hard on any expression in Hong Kong.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

On the question of Hong Kong, is it not obvious that one reason why the Chinese Government did not honour the terms of the joint declaration was that they were given lots of signals from this country that we did not really care that much about it and that we were quite glad to be shot of Hong Kong? Signals matter, and the signals that we send every time we prefer trade to human rights are entirely the wrong signals to be sending.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman is truly wise in his words, and I fully agree with his comments. I had the same concern. When the deal was done, there seemed to be almost wishful thinking from the UK Government that things would be all right, when the reality should have told us—and the Government—that they definitely would not.

The issue of tying business and economic opportunities in with human rights is something I have espoused in Westminster Hall, but also in the main Chamber and through the APPG as well. We need to marry the two together; the one cannot succeed without the others’ interpretation.

[Margaret Ferrier]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. Hundreds were expected to march in Hong Kong for gender equality ahead of International Women’s Day, but the demonstration was called off with just hours’ notice by organisers. Human Rights Watch said that the authorities seemed to be approving demonstrations while intimidating organisers and participants with jail time to deter participation. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the continued impact of Hong Kong’s national security laws on the right to peaceful protest?

[Jim Shannon]

I do, and with some annoyance, anger and compassion for the residents of Hong Kong because they are being denied the freedom they once had. The UK Government have obviously stepped in and offered some passage for many Hong Kongers to come here to live. That is good news, but would it not be better if they were able to stay in their own country and exercise the freedom they once had?

We also have the continuing repression in Tibet. It was a salient reminder, when I did my research before this debate, when I found out that the suppression in Tibet has been going on since 1950. That is five years before I was born, so Tibetans’ freedoms have been denied and restricted for a long, long time. I understand that the inauguration of a new Dalai Lama will be at the behest of the Chinese Communist party. A religious group cannot appoint its own leader in Tibet, but only because the Chinese Communist party will not let them. Again, that is another example of what is going on inside China, and of China’s influence and control.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I am hoping to speak in the debate, so I will not intervene much. Just to be clear, whatever the Chinese Communist party Government think, the next Dalai Lama will be the responsibility of the people of Tibet and those entrusted by the current Dalai Lama to produce his successor. It will not be a result of what the Chinese Communist party allow or do not allow.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The information I have suggested that the Chinese Communist party was going to try to use its influence to ensure that any choice would be the choice of the Chinese Communist party, but if, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is some control over that, that would be one of the good things that could come out of this.

The issue of forced organ transplantation from members of the Falun Gong has been in my heart in this House for some 10 years now. It is being done on a commercial scale, and people have lost their lives. We must never forget the impact of that on the Falun Gong.

There is also the persecution of Christians. Churches have been destroyed, with secret police sitting in church services, taking notes of those who are there, and recording car numbers and which houses people return to. We have also had the rise of cyber-surveillance in China, which is another indication of those being imprisoned, beaten and injured all because they happen to have a different religious opinion. Today, we had some good news: the Government indicated that they would suspend their agreement with TikTok. That is good news when it comes to security issues, and we must welcome it.

In my time as an MP, I have seen the UK move from the “golden era” espoused by David Cameron and George Osborne to the confusion and lack of cohesion on China under this Government. In each case, the policies were driven by economics. Economics is of course relevant, but our policies must encompass other important factors such as our human rights obligations, and take into account our moral compass and what we believe. There is a real fear that focusing solely on money would mean that the UK’s fundamental beliefs in human rights and the rule of law are subjugated for the purpose of trade deals. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to that; it is one of the key issues, and I seek clarification and encouragement from the Minister on it. That would be great for China and other authoritarian states, but terrible for the UK’s standing in the world. I urge extreme caution and recommend change.

We are watching in real time the reduction of democratic states and the rise of authoritarian regimes. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, 23 countries out of 167 monitored in 2020 could be called democracies. Fifty were considered authoritarian, and the others attained some form of flawed democracy or hybrid system, more likely than not under the control of one person.

China and Russia are leading the global rise in authoritarian states. They are seeking to build their own alliances, disrupt democratic processes in other countries, interfere in elections, and create their own channels for communication and cyber-control away from the norms and standards expected by international treaties. They support each other at institutions such as the United Nations, where the evil axis gathers together to defend each other’s interests and provide financial and political support for one another. The unfortunate thing for us is that democracies seem incapable of working together to fight back against that in a single-minded, focused manner, so I have great concerns.

The Chinese Government have committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against the Uyghurs since 2014. I and others, including the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is in the Chamber, have raised that issue. Abuse is also perpetrated against other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang province. This is the largest scale detention of ethnic and religious minorities since world war two. It is of that size; it is almost impossible to take in the number.

The United States has declared China’s human rights abuses a genocide, as have legislators in several other countries, including Canada, the Netherlands, Lithuania and France. We have even done so in this House of Commons in a debate led by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. The Parliaments of New Zealand, Belgium and the Czech Republic condemned the Chinese Government’s treatment of the Uyghurs as severe human rights abuses or crimes against humanity, which they truly are.

China continues to deny any wrongdoing and threatens politicians and even entire countries with retaliation simply for daring to raise and debate these issues. Diplomats are deployed to berate senior Government officials and speak at news stations to explain that everyone is wrong and at this is all just Sinophobia and anti-China rhetoric. No, it is not; it is much more than that.

Atrocities in Tibet have been going on since 1950—so much so that we barely react any more. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has spoken about Tibet for as long as I have been in this House, and long before that, I believe. He has highlighted it on many occasions. We cannot forget about it. We need to focus on what is happening there, which is hard to take in, with regularity and ferocity. Children are forced into re-education boarding schools as a way of eradicating their language and religion, with the hope that they will reject their own families and culture. Such policies have left a trail of family destruction and have cut cultural and historical memory.

China plans to choose the next Dalai Lama, but I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman said that those of the Dalai Lama’s religion will make that choice. I hope that will be the case and that China does not influence it in any way. We wait to see what happens.

Hong Kong wants to be a peaceful and prosperous city, a thriving economic and social hub in Asia, and truly global in its influence, but it has been brought to its knees in just three years since the introduction of the national security law.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am grateful—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I understand. I was about to explain and apologise, Sir Edward, for not having got here earlier: a Minister waylaid me.

On Hong Kong, the Americans have now sanctioned about 10 people in the Hong Kong Administration for their behaviour over the new security laws. The UK, which once used to be responsible for Hong Kong and is a signatory to the Sino-British agreement, has sanctioned absolutely nobody. Does the hon. Gentleman think that is a balanced position to take on Hong Kong?

[Jim Shannon]

It is certainly not balanced. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He has highlighted this point in the Chamber on numerous occasions. He consistently and regularly points directly out to the Government that this matter must be addressed. If we are going to do things right, and it is our job in this House to do so, that has to be addressed. If the United States can sanction more people than we could even consider—I understand the number is maybe two in our country—we have to and we must do more. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on all he does; we recognise his contribution.

The national security law is an arbitrary piece of legislation, the details of which were kept secret until after it was passed. It criminalises any act of disobedience or dissent, and any challenge to the Government can be swept up in the catch-all categories of secession, subversion, terrorism and, crucially, collusion with foreign or external forces. Rather than being used to protect people, the national security law is being used to silence—the very opposite. Newspaper and internet news outlets have been shut, journalists arrested and protesters detained—all accused of one or more of the four national security law charges.

The most infamous case of the law being used to crush media freedom in Hong Kong as that of Apple Daily, the most popular newspaper in Hong Kong, which is pro-democracy and openly called out Chinese Communist party activities. It was founded by a British citizen, Jimmy Lai, whose spent his 800th day in a Hong Kong prison last Friday 10 March. His national security law trial is repeatedly delayed, as the Hong Kong authorities scramble to find a new set of legal machinations just to keep him in prison. He is a British citizen. We should be doing more for him. I do not see that, and it disappoints me.

China has broken its promises to Britain and to the people of Hong Kong that the city would enjoy its way of life under the one country, two systems formula, which promised a high degree of autonomy for 50 years following the 1997 handover. Hong Kong is now a puppet state of China. The recent multimillion dollar campaign, “Hello Hong Kong”, called on the world to come to the reopened city. It fell flat, given that 47 democracy campaigners were put on trial the very next day. Welcome to Hong Kong—“If you come to Hong Kong, here is what happens to you.”

Across the world, China seems to be at the centre of multiple political and economic scandals, whether that is spy balloons over America or interference in Canada’s election. There seems to be an increasing sense that China has never been bolder in asserting itself around the world. The belt and road initiative, adopted by the Chinese Government in 2013, to invest in more than 150 countries and international organisations, is considered a centrepiece of Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s foreign policy.

We can see China’s tentacles across Africa and in countries around the world. The policy has been used to extend Chinese economic and political influence around the world. It has been used to secure votes at multinational organisations such as the United Nations, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and in many regional groupings across the world. It forces countries into debt economics. Even EU states now have ports, docks and infrastructure projects funded by the belt and road initiative, at a time when the EU should be shoring up its own defence, cyber and technological strategies. The initiative is causing splits inside the EU and creating division among Governments. That is great news for China and for other authoritarian states.

Here in the UK, we have seen the rise of China’s economic and political engagement. In 2022, more students came to the UK from China than anywhere else. Nearly one in four international students is from China—approximately 152,000 students. Of the 2,600 international students studying at Queen’s University in Belfast, we have a vibrant Chinese community of more than 1,200 students.

Along with that, we have seen the explosion of Confucius Institutes across the UK. The United Kingdom is host to 30 Confucius Institutes, more than any other country. Their ostensible purpose is to teach Mandarin and to promote Chinese culture, but in reality they are part of the above-ground arm of the Chinese Communist party’s United Front Work Department.

According to a 2022 report by the Henry Jackson Society and the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, those 30 institutes have been funded to the tune of as much as £46 million, mostly from the Chinese Government. Unlike the British Council, Confucius Institutes are formally part of the propaganda system of the Chinese Communist party, dependent on Chinese Government funding and, in general, subject to People’s Republic of China speech restrictions. Although Confucius Institutes are described as language and culture centres, the report confirms that only four of the 30 institutes stick solely to language and culture. Quite clearly, they do their own thing and ignore much of what is going on.

Operating from prestigious universities such as the University of Edinburgh and the London School of Economics, Confucius Institutes have been informing Government policy and politicians, offering consultancy services to business, promoting trade and co-operating with UK organisations that work with the United Front Work Department, the interference activities of which were recently highlighted by MI5 and reported prominently in the papers and media. That is not innocent language and cultural exchange.

In spite of the political attention paid to Confucius Institutes, and the press and academic attention during the last six years, the pattern has gone unnoticed, and its ramifications have been ignored—an issue that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green brings to this House on many occasions. To combat those negative practices, the Government should consider the introduction of legislation to remove Confucius Institutes completely from UK universities. Will the Minister confirm whether the British Government will do just that? Further, it has been suggested that the Government should provide funding for UK universities to allocate to China studies and bolster knowledge regarding China’s presence in the UK. I believe that that merits consideration. It is not the direct responsibility of the Minister, but it is certainly one for Education Ministers.

Time is passing, but I should mention the fact that many believe that there is a notable level of political interference—from funding from Chinese nationals to Members of Parliament, to the beating of Bob Chan in Manchester last October. I am sure we all vividly remember this man, who was beaten by the Chinese consul general and other diplomats in full view of the public and cameras. The consul general then went on TV to admit to and justify his actions; he did not even feel ashamed or regretful. The appropriate action should have been taken, yet it appears that it was left to fade into the background. Eventually, two months later, China recalled the diplomats, and it appears that no steps whatever were taken by the British to send the message that that behaviour is not tolerated. Again, that is disappointing and regrettable. I always say things respectfully to the Ministers, but I want my Government and my Ministers to be strong when it comes to standing up for human rights and against things that are wrong across the world.

As a nation, we should be seeking constructive relationships with countries around the world. I understand that not all will be savoury, but we should be making human rights and good conduct cornerstones of our foreign relations—even, or especially, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, when it comes to trade and development. That is what sets our country apart from authoritarian ones such as China. There is no reason for the UK not to have a constructive relationship with China, but we should not be afraid on any occasion to say no and to show strength, and we need to do that more regularly and more courageously.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman has given a comprehensive tour de raison of the issues. Considering it as a whole—I get a sense that he is coming to his peroration—does he think it reasonable or sensible that the integrated review refresh that we heard about on Monday now does not classify China as a threat?

[Jim Shannon]

That was a disappointment. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is clear from my contribution, and will be clear from what others will say, that we do see China as a threat. We want to have a working relationship, but we have to recognise that China quite clearly does not.

Surely, if any lessons are to be learned from the relationship with Russia over the last 10 years, for example, it is that kowtowing, appeasing or ignoring will lead to only more egregious actions by the aggressor state—from Russia in the past, but from China in the future. China has been watching the war that Russia has inflicted on Ukraine, and it will have noted that while Russian troops are killing, raping and bombing Ukrainian citizens, Western states in some cases have been prevaricating and debating what to do in response. China is watching, and so is Taiwan. Sending weapons is good, but it could all have been avoided if the warning signs about Russia were heeded several years ago.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Following the announcement that Honduras is seeking diplomatic ties with China, Taiwan has just a few remaining formal allies on the global stage, most of which are small, poor nations in the Pacific. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UK must use its influence on the world stage to help protect Taiwan’s rights as an independent nation?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do and I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement this week of the submarine deal between the UK, USA and Australia. That shows that there is a commitment, although of course we probably want to see much more than that. The hon. Lady is absolutely right and I thank her for that intervention.

If we think that things are bad now, imagine the pain that will be inflicted on the UK and the world when—I use these words carefully—China invades Taiwan. Hon. Members will note that I said “when” rather than “if” China moves to take Taiwan. Xi Jinping has reaffirmed his commitment to communist Chinese rule of Taiwan, by force—his words—if necessary.

We cannot fall asleep at the wheel while getting lulled to sleep by the comfort of investments, trade, and cash flows. We should begin the careful process of reducing our reliance on Chinese-made goods and products right now. Let us start taking a careful look at where British businesses invest and give them warnings that contracts and treaties may not be upheld, and to be careful about where they invest their money.

Let us start speaking up for those who are being oppressed in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet. Let us get British citizen Jimmy Lai out of prison and let us not ponder solely on how China might react, but instead give China pause for thought about what it might lose by not working with the United Kingdom.

I believe in good relations; I also believe in doing what is right, as we all do in this Chamber. I know that there is a balance to be struck.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for intervening on him again. However, I just want to make the point that I have met Jimmy Lai’s family, and the one thing they asked for is that the British Government give full public recognition to the fact that he is a British citizen and a British passport holder. The British Government have said that they will not do that because it might exacerbate problems, but honestly Jimmy Lai knows and expects that after the next court case this year he is likely to be imprisoned for a very long time—maybe for the rest of his life. He wants the world to know that he is a British passport holder and British citizen; he is proud of that and wants representation.

[Jim Shannon]

Again, the right hon. Gentleman makes the case for Jimmy Lai. I think the Minister—I am sure that he is taking note of all this—and his officials will ensure that Jimmy Lai becomes part of our priorities in this House now and for the future, as should be the case.

As the Bible says—Sir Edward, I know that you and I read it every day—

“speak the truth in love”.

I do not see the balance thus far. I ask the Minister to look at where we are, and where we need to be, and to begin the journey there. Human rights and moral obligations are not merely desirable; they are the very foundation on which any relationship should be built. We have a chance to change this situation—to move it upwards—and get it right. That is what I urge the Minister to begin to do today.

We are all here for one purpose: to speak up for those who have no voice—and there are many of them. Right hon. and hon. Members have spoken up for others across the world on many occasions. Today we focus on the evil intentions of China. Yes, we want to work with China, if possible, and address human rights and religious liberties, and the right for people to have freedom of expression in relation to where they worship. Those things are not happening there. We must highlight that today, and ensure that our Minister has a firm grip of what is happening. I hope that the Minister will respond to our asks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions—including the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), who always speaks on behalf of those in Hong Kong and the Uyghurs. We all appreciate her intelligent interventions. I give special thanks to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). Whenever he gets up to speak, I sit down to listen. Many others in the Chamber do the same: we recognise that he speaks words of wisdom. He clearly underlined the question of when the UK Government will demand the release of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen. When will he be released? That is not too much to ask.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has campaigned on behalf of Tibet for a long time. One of the first Westminster Hall debates that I attended—about 10 years ago now; that is hard to believe—was led by the hon. Gentleman. He referred to the authoritarian lifetime President of China. He made a comparison with the Nazis of the 1930s and discussed China’s attempt to change the world order by strengthening its navy, air force and army. As always, he spoke up for the Uyghurs, those in Tibet and the Dalai Lama. He also mentioned the Confucius Institutes, which we are all concerned about.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) shared his wisdom, referring to how his debate on genomics last week had developed beyond this Chamber. He said that it had to be part of the critical structure of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) also referred to the Confucius Institutes and growing Chinese influence. He discussed China’s key role in Hong Kong and across the world, including the United Kingdom, and its strategy.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) spoke of the genocide against the Uyghurs and the UK’s need to show strength against China. She gave examples of where the independent review does not challenge China as we would like it to have. At the end, the Minister spoke of what the United Kingdom is doing. We would probably like to see a bit more courage, strength and determination; I say that with respect. We need to see those things as the UK Government strategy goes forward.

I finish with this comment. This April, one of Hong Kong’s most senior finance officials is planning to visit the UK. If we were any sort of strong, forward-thinking, determined and courageous country, we would say to him, “You know something? You’re not welcome until we see the changes that should be happening.” I thank you for your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and everyone else who has contributed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of relations with China during the presidency of Xi Jinping.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

Since the Syria crisis began, as my hon. Friend knows, Britain has contributed something like £3.8 billion, which is more than the whole European Union has provided added together. We will certainly focus on that. For now, the British taxpayer has found £43 million and the Disasters Emergency Committee has raised £100 million. All across the country, people are responding magnificently to this crisis. In my constituency, the Sutton Coldfield chamber choir will be playing at a concert at St Columba’s church on Saturday night to raise money for Turkish victims.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

More than 850,000 children remain displaced after the earthquake that hit in early February, with many of these children now in temporary shelters. What discussions have Ministers had with Turkish officials to ensure that all is done to return children to a place of safety, to locate their families and to educate them?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman is right on all counts. Immediately after the crisis, Education Cannot Wait allocated $7 million to try to ensure that children, particularly those out of school, could get back into education. We will continue with our efforts to ensure people who suffered so much from the earthquake are remedied in every way we can.

Integrated Review Refresh

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

We have fantastic defence industries here in the UK. I think the reason countries are keen to work with us on projects such as AUKUS, the future combat air system and others is that internationally they recognise the huge value added to defence systems by the engagement of the UK, whether at governmental level or in the commercial sector. We value the jobs based in the UK’s defence sector, and of course this is about preserving those jobs, which are more geographically dispersed than in other sectors of the UK economy. Good value, high-paid, high-skilled jobs across the whole of the UK is something we will continue to focus on.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement and welcome the Government announcement regarding the increase in defence spending—something for which I, along with many others in this House, have been asking for years. I note that the increase is in response to Russia and other global concerns and that the Secretary of State in his statement referred to the increase in cyber and technology, but it is also important to have an increase of soldiers on the ground. Is it not possible to have both cyber and technology, and boots on the ground?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. and gallant Gentleman makes an important point: just because new threats have emerged, as we have seen with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the old threats do not go away. We are seeing a full-spectrum attack by Russia, including cyber-attack, missile attack, tank attack and, sadly, first world war-style trench warfare around Bakhmut. We have to understand that it is not a case of either/or; it has to be both. This integrated review refresh recognises that, and I can assure him and the House that we will make sure we cover all the areas where we need to defend ourselves.

Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation: Sanctions and Tariffs

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sanctions and tariffs on Belarus and Russia.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. Sanctions and the war in Ukraine have been given a great deal of attention, and rightly so. It is fitting that just downstairs in Westminster Hall, Volodymyr Zelensky, the President of Ukraine, was able to address parliamentarians from both sides of the House. Members of all parties have been united in their response to the illegal invasion of Ukraine, and I hope we can continue that cross-party consensus today.

I want to make it clear that I have not held this debate to undermine the Government’s policies on sanctions and tariffs against Russia and Belarus. I am on board with the policy. I agree that we must isolate both Belarus’s and Russia’s economies and target the key industries that support President Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate, and I concur with her comments. Does she agree that, although we have huge compassion for the Russian and Belarusian people, who are paying the price for their dictators’ decisions, we must increase the pace of our sanctions on these nations and ensure that the price for those decisions is paid where it hurts—in the pockets of the oligarchs?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree with the hon. Member. The sanctions regime is integral to Britain’s role in supporting Ukraine and holding Putin’s regime accountable for the acts of violence that it continues to perpetrate against civilians across Ukraine.

Human Rights and Religious Minorities: Sudan

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered human rights and religious minorities in Sudan.

I think the last time we discussed this matter was a debate in 2020. There was some optimism then, some two and a half or three years ago. This time round, I have done my research—Members have all done research on the issue—and the facts indicate a level of persecution and human rights abuse that is very disappointing. I am pleased that Members have been able to attend, and I look forward to the contributions of the shadow spokespeople—the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for the SNP and the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) for Labour. It is nice to see the hon. Lady in her place and I know that the contribution that she and others make will be significant.

I am especially pleased to see the Minister in her place. We have had a good working relationship over the years on many things. I understand that this issue is not her direct responsibility, but I am sure she will convey our requests to the appropriate Minister. I have about five or six requests, which I will make at the end.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to highlight human rights abuses and the state of freedom of religion or belief in Sudan. Sudan has not received much parliamentary attention in recent years. In the previous debate in 2020, I expressed cautious optimism in the positive direction of the country at that time. The regime of Omar al-Bashir had just been overthrown, and a transitional Government had a mandate to establish democratic elections. The country’s new constitution enshrined freedom of religion or belief, the apostasy law was repealed and many closed churches were allowed to open. It looked like we had turned a corner and things were going to get better. In fact, the changes were significant enough for the country to be removed from the United States’ special watchlist. Countries on that list are a focus of attention; in countries that are not, things are better.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Sudan made important strides in upholding human rights and freedom of religion in the aftermath of the 2019 revolution. That progress is now at high risk following the military coup. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office notes that the Sudanese people’s freedoms are already severely limited. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UK Government and our international partners must continue to urge the authorities to protect the rights of the Sudanese people as a priority?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

As always, the hon. Lady makes a salient and important intervention, and I wholeheartedly applaud what she says. My contribution will explain what she said in her intervention in more detail.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Darfur—an important reminder that we have a duty to prevent mass atrocities, not just to punish the perpetrators after a genocide has occurred. The last few years have not been very kind to Sudan. A military coup in October 2021 has damaged the progress achieved by the transitional Government, and has led to increased human rights abuses and a resurgence of discrimination and violence against religious or belief minorities. The country rose to number nine in the Open Doors 2023 world watch list. Countries in the top 10 are not there for good reasons: if they are the top 10, they have done things wrong. The freedoms that communities had experienced were cruelly stripped away.

The coup returned effective control to the military and fundamentalist Islamic groups that made up Omar al-Bashir’s Government. Some of the bad guys that were there before are back in charge again; many former members of the regime have returned to power. As a result, a fundamentalist ideology once again forms a central part of the military junta. A military Government led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan imposed a state of emergency, which allowed the army to consolidate its rule—in other words, to use strong-arm methods. That gave them sweeping powers, which have been used to roll back much of the progress achieved by the transitional Government. Al-Bashir scrapped Sudan’s new constitution, which had enshrined protections for religious minorities, including freedom of worship and freedom to change one’s religion.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I am pleased to speak on behalf of my Christian brothers and sisters in Sudan. I may never meet them in this world, but I can still speak for them. I speak for other religious minorities as well—Sudan’s Shi’a, Jewish and Baha’i communities are also suffering under a cruel regime that wants to properly impose sharia law in the judicial system.

Shi’a Muslims currently experience widespread discrimination. There have been several high-profile attacks on Shi’a mosques, which has led to many Shi’as self-censoring and avoiding voicing their beliefs or religious practices that differ from the Sunni practice. Under the transitional Government, Sudan invited its Jewish diaspora to return, as many had fled persecution under al-Bashir’s regime. That attitude has changed, and the country’s tiny Jewish community now faces violent attacks and hate speech. The state TV channel, under control of the military junta, has broadcast antisemitic conspiracies, with one programme stating that “Jews epitomise all trickery”. The Baha’i community is not recognised by the country, and can operate only in secret.

I will use the remainder of my time to talk about Sudan’s Christian community, partly because, as a Christian, the issue is close to my heart, but also for practical reasons. It has been easier to document attacks and discrimination against Sudan’s Christians, not only because they are a larger minority than the Jews and the Baha’is but because they are unable to operate under the radar by self-censoring. They have chosen not to do that. The crimes committed against them could be considered a case study of how Sudan treats religious minorities.

The coup led to a near-instant escalation of violence and intimidation directed at Sudan’s Christians. Overnight, the community faced severe restrictions on its religious practices and freedom of worship. Two broad issues have had a significant effect on the lives of Christians in Sudan: the change in the role of the police—directed by the military junta and the imposed Government—and increased pressure from society and extremist groups. Following the coup, the country’s senior police officers were replaced with individuals aligned to the al-Bashir regime. They got rid of them and then they brought them back to enforce the regime, only this time they are supported entirely by the Government. The groups most affected by that move are the church leaders and women.

[Margaret Ferrier]

In October, Sudan was re-elected to the UN Human Rights Council despite ongoing concerns about abuses in the country, and particularly those perpetrated by the security services. Does the hon. Gentleman share the worry that this could risk affecting the perception of the UNHRC’s credibility?

[Jim Shannon]

I will refer to that near the end of my contribution. I do share that worry. It seems unreal to me that any country would be elected to that position when they have a totally different attitude to what the UNHRC wants to achieve. I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that.

Under the transitional Government, police were ordered to protect places of worship, but there are now worrying reports that they are being used to silence minorities. Church leaders have been harassed, arrested and even tortured by the police. Security forces have destroyed churches and stolen church assets. In one instance, a pastor in Darfur and his three children died in “mysterious circumstances” after a visit from—guess who?—the armed security police. The human rights group Waging Peace said that Christians are

“once more being persecuted by the Khartoum military junta.”

That has to be concerning.

As is often the case, women from religious minorities face a double level of persecution. In August 2022, the police introduced a new “community squad”. Its remit is nearly identical to the remit of al-Bashir’s morality police, which used to patrol the streets, targeting religious minorities and women to enforce how people acted and dressed in public. The community squad has started taking women to court and prosecuting them for violating the dress code or drinking alcohol. That forces Christian women to adopt a disguise in public and prevents the sacrament of holy communion—a basic part of our right to worship and have a religious belief.

Since the introduction of the community squad, its remit seems to have been expanded. Historically, the morality police were confined to what happened in public, but the community squad apparently intervenes in private life. Let me provide some examples. Days after the squad was established, it raided a private house in Khartoum in a high-profile operation and arrested 18 people for allegedly drinking alcohol. People are not free anywhere, even within the walls of their own houses.

Alarmingly, there has been a spike in adultery convictions. In July last year, 20-year-old Maryam Alsyed Tiyrab was arrested and charged with adultery. A state court found her guilty and sentenced her to death by stoning. In another case, a married couple are currently on trial for adultery after the husband, who did not do anything physically wrong, converted to Christianity. The law prohibits a Muslim woman being married to a non-Muslim man. In that case, the adultery did not involve anyone else, but was because the couple had different religions, the husband having left one religion to join another.

This is a time when violence against women and girls has soared. Such violence happens around the world and it depresses me to read stories about it. Since the coup, there has been a climate of impunity for those attacking women and girls, and a prominent message that women should not challenge traditional roles by leaving their homes to go to school or work. Women are second-class citizens.

There has been a resurgence in the use of apostasy laws. Despite the transitional Government having repealed Sudan’s apostasy laws, they are now being used to target Christians who have converted from Islam. For example, in July 2022 police raided a Baptist church in Zalingei, Darfur, and four Christians were detained, all of whom had converted from Islam. I am a Baptist; that is my chosen denomination within my faith. They were beaten by the police and questioned about their faith. All four were charged with apostasy under the penal code article 126, even though that article was abolished by the transitional Government. The police used a law that no longer exists for their own ends. The four people were taken to Zalingei prison and eventually released on bail. While on bail, they faced intimidation from the police and the local community. The Baptist church and the Christian homes in the area have also been attacked and there has been violence against all those people.

Besides increased pressure from the police and armed forces, Christians have seen a huge increase in hostilities from wider society. Under the transitional Government, places of worship received increased protection from the police and the number of attacks decreased, but following the coup that trend has reversed. Since the coup there have been dozens of attacks on churches and Shi’a mosques, and they started just days after the military junta took power. I want to give an idea of the scale of the attacks. I will not give an exhaustive list—far from it; a one-and-a-half hour debate is not enough time to give justice to all the cases—but I will give four or five examples.

The Sudanese Church of Christ in Jabarona was attacked on four separate occasions in the first three months after the coup. Church leaders received threats from extremists living in the area. One threat stated:

“If the government gives you permission to build a church here they better be prepared to collect your dead bodies.”

That was an instant, physical, violent and direct threat.

In Bout, on 28 December 2019, the Sudan Internal Church, the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church were all set on fire. They were rebuilt using local materials and on the night of 16 January 2020, some 19 days later, all three were burned down again. The churches reported both attacks, but the police did not investigate or put in place protective measures. Will the Minister take note of this example in particular? It is an example of case in which the police did not act. It is important that the Minister asks questions about that directly to the Sudanese authorities.

On 14 February 2022, a church elder was killed and several religious buildings were destroyed in Aneet market, in Abyei region.

On 10 April 2022, a Church of Christ pastor and members of the congregation were attacked in Gezira state. The church was damaged and Bibles were torn up. The victims attempted to submit a criminal complaint to the police, as we would do in this country, but instead the attacker and the pastor have since been charged with disturbing the peace, even though all they were doing was reporting a crime against their church and people.

On 16 December 2022, a Sudanese Church of Christ church was burned down by a soldier in Doka. Despite the soldier being identified by many witnesses, his connection to the military protected him from prosecution. In this country, if a soldier does something wrong, he does not have protection: if he does wrong, he is held accountable.

We have a clear pattern of behaviour: the rolling back of minority rights by the junta, the withdrawal of police protection, and the return of fundamentalist rhetoric has led to these attacks and others. Attackers are able to act with impunity. The police rarely investigate such attacks, and they intimidate or even arrest the victims. If someone makes a complaint, they are seen almost as a perpetrator by the police, which is one of the issues I want the Minister to address. After the coup, members of the security forces implicated in human rights violations have immunity. It seems that they can do whatever they want—a situation that must end. Those who carry out crimes in uniform or on behalf of the junta must be held to account.

In addition to the pressures from the security forces, Christians are facing increased pressure from other groups in society. This has led to an increase in killings and attacks on religious and ethnic minority villages. Gill Lusk from the Sudan Studies Society says that

“at local level, tribes identifying as Arab and Muslim are incited to take land from groups they see as black and/or Christian.”

In other words, if you are a Christian or an ethnic minority, what you have is not yours and they can take it. That cannot be allowed.

Groups that held power under al-Bashir’s regime have been emboldened to seize land from religious and ethnic minorities. More than 900 people have been killed in these land seizures, echoing the conditions that led to the Darfur genocide some 20 years ago. It is worth noting that the attacks on freedom of religion or belief are part of the wider context of human rights abuses in Sudan. Since the coup, the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association have been severely restricted by the junta. There has been reports of numerous violations of human rights on a massive scale, including arbitrary detention, torture and extrajudicial killings. Although the state of emergency was lifted in May 2022, these abuses continue.

The Sudanese Government have also been implicated in the ongoing conflict in the Darfur region, which has resulted in the displacement of millions of people and hundreds of thousands of deaths. Again, this is on a scale that is hard to talk about, and it is hard to visualise it as well. Recent protests have seen the deaths of 99 people and left more than 5,000 injured. The security forces have switched to using live bullets and driving their armoured vehicles at speed into crowds of demonstrators. Following the end of a protest, the security forces have taken to raiding nearby hospitals—again, clear criminal acts—and to using teargas and grenades to hunt down injured protesters. This has resulted in the deaths of patients who were not involved in protests, and of at least two doctors in those hospitals. The Guardian reports that patients had to hide under beds as security forces raided the hospitals.

Despite all this Sudan was, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said, re-elected to the UN Human Rights Council last October. We should not put a country into that group if it is responsible for a genocide, a murder campaign, and discrimination and human rights abuses against religious minorities. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said that he hopes Sudan will use its presence

“as an opportunity to demonstrate to the international community its commitment to international human rights law and to bringing those responsible for human rights violations to justice.”

It will be some time before they do that, because Sudan’s representatives are giving their own people, their own junta, their own military and their own Government officials the right to carry out abuses. Does the Minister think that Sudan has demonstrated its commitment to international human rights law during its tenure on the UNHRC? In other words, why was Sudan ever put on the UNHRC?

Exacerbating all this is the fact that Sudan is in the midst of a humanitarian crisis fuelled by conflict, floods, food shortages, epidemics and the collapse of the economy following the coup. The British ambassador to Sudan, Giles Lever, recently told parliamentarians that 15.8 million people—one third of the population—will need humanitarian assistance this year. He described insufficient supplies of bread and wheat and how what was available was priced out of the range of the majority of the population.

I put on record my thanks to our Government, the Minister and officials. The UK Government stated that UK aid will not inadvertently exclude religious minority communities who are often unable to access distribution points. Will the Minister tell me of any specific steps taken in Sudan to mitigate against that? The reports that we are getting back indicate that religious minorities are not getting the UK aid that they should. I know that is never the intention of the Government, but if we give it we must make sure that it is conditional and minority groups get it.

The situation for religious minorities in Sudan is part of a broader human rights crisis in the country. The conditions in parts of Sudan are worryingly similar to those that preceded the genocide in Darfur. It is hard to believe that anyone could hate anybody so much. The International Development Committee’s report “From Srebrenica to a safer tomorrow”, the Truro review and the genocide convention all highlight the need to prevent mass atrocities and genocide when there are credible warning signs. Does the Minister agree that what we see in Sudan could be a warning sign of future atrocities? If so, will the UK and our Minister raise the issue at the UN, through our membership of the Human Rights Council and the Security Council?

Will the Minister tell me whether the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has undertaken a joint analysis of conflict and stability assessment of the situation in Sudan? If so, can that be made available in the Library for everyone present and for those who wish to know more? What is the Government’s view of the legitimacy of Sudan’s membership of the UN Human Rights Council, given current abuses? How can any country be a part of that if they are carrying out abuse? What practical steps has the FCDO taken to ensure that minority communities have fair access to humanitarian aid in Sudan?

Does the Minister agree that there is a similarity with the conditions that preceded the genocide in Darfur? If we look at what is happening now, we cannot but see the similarities, so we need to do something now to make sure it does not get to that stage. Will the UK raise the issue at the UN Security Council and Human Rights Council? When will a JACS assessment on Sudan be completed and made available for Members?

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate. We are here to represent people who have nobody to speak for them. Westminster Hall debates give us that opportunity and the chance to speak for our brothers, sisters and Christians around the world, and also for the Shi’as and other ethnic minorities, including the Jews and the Baha’is, and for many others who try to keep their heads down, but there is a concerted and planned strategy by the Sudanese Government against them. This debate gives us a chance to highlight that and to ask our Minister and our Government, who are extremely responsive, to ensure that UK aid gets to the people it needs to get to.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate and for bringing attention to the human rights situation in Sudan. I commend him for his long-standing commitment to freedom of religion or belief. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group, which continues to raise awareness of this particular human right among parliamentarians and the public. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), our Minister for Africa and development, is currently away on ministerial duties, but I am pleased to be able to respond on his behalf.

Under the 30 years of al-Bashir’s regime, human rights in Sudan were atrocious. The state restricted freedom of religion and belief and political space for any alternative voices. The state committed and failed to act against sexual and gender-based violence and committed grave human rights violations. Citizens were subjected to arbitrary detention, torture and state-sponsored violence. After al-Bashir was toppled in the 2019 revolution, the civilian-led transitional Government made significant progress on human rights.

In July 2020, the Office of the UN Commissioner for Human Rights opened a country office, demonstrating Sudan’s commitment to allowing independent scrutiny of its human rights situation. The transitional Government made key reforms, improving the situation across the country. Criminal laws were reformed to abolish flogging and strengthen legal protections against torture. In August 2021, the transitional Government ratified the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment—known as UNCAT—and they ratified the international convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearances.

Sudan joined the Media Freedom Coalition, signing the global pledge on media freedom. That is a written commitment to improve the domestic environment for journalists to work safely and to work with partners to improve international media freedoms. Measures were introduced to protect freedom of religion or belief. Christmas was declared a national holiday for the first time in a decade, and in 2020 the transitional Government abolished apostasy laws, a crime that previously carried the death penalty.

Women’s voices were key to the 2019 revolution, and significant reforms to women’s rights were made under the transitional Government. In 2019, the public order 1997 law that limited women’s dress and movements was repealed, meaning women could now wear trousers, or could leave Sudan without the permission of a male guardian, without fear of arrest or capital punishment. Progress was also made on sexual-based violence, including the criminalisation of female genital mutilation, making the offence punishable by a fine and three years in prison.

Sadly, as colleagues have laid out today, the situation has backtracked since the coup in October 2021, an event that threatened to derail the progress that Sudan had made from oppressive autocratic rule towards freedom and democracy. In response, the international community, including the UK, withdrew all development and technical support to the military leadership so as not to legitimatise the coup authorities. Only humanitarian assistance continues. I will ensure that the Minister updates my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and other colleagues about the ways in which official development assistance is being spent at the moment. Various colleagues raised that. I do not have that information to hand, but I will ensure that that is shared.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton mentioned our special representative for Sudan and South Sudan. She will be pleased to know that Robert Fairweather joined other envoys last month in Khartoum and they pressed Sudanese interlocuters to show pragmatism in trying to reach an agreement to appoint a civilian-led Government. Alongside international partners, we are encouraging a political settlement that will see the military step back from politics and allow a civilian-led Government to be reinstated. Once in place, that will allow international assistance to restart, and some of those key reforms to continue.

In the aftermath of the coup, millions of Sudanese demonstrators took to the streets in protest. They were met with violence from Sudan’s security forces. Between 25 October 2021 and 7 June 2022, more than 100 protestors were killed. Powers of arrest, search and immunity were returned to intelligence officers. Civilians and political activists were subjected to arbitrary detention and unlawful arrests under emergency laws, as Sudan’s military and security forces attempted to suppress opposition and dissent. Media outlets seen to be critical of the military were shut down, and journalists faced unlawful detention.

As the hon. Member for Strangford set out, women and girls experienced serious violence and rape during demonstrations and arbitrary detention. In July 2022, a court in Sudan sentenced a woman to death by stoning for alleged adultery, the first in more than a decade. I am pleased to see that that sentence was later overturned at appeal, but she remains in detention. There have been incidents of religious prosecution, including four Christians detained on apostasy charges and a pastor assaulted during a service and convicted of disturbing the peace. These are all unacceptable acts of violence and breaches of human rights.

In recent months, we have started to see some small progress towards a return to the democratic transition we are all hoping to see. On 5 December, an initial framework political agreement was signed, an essential first step towards establishing a civilian-led transitional Government. Since then, political parties, youth and women’s groups and resistance committees have come together for a series of dialogues to address the remaining barriers to Sudan’s return to democracy.

While the human rights situation remains concerning, there have been some limited improvements in response to international pressure. The UK has continued to lobby the de facto authorities to end all sexual and gender-based violence against women and girls, to protect religious and media freedoms, and to end violence against people exercising their right to protest.

Members raised the point that the Sudanese police are not acting to protect those persecuted for their Christian beliefs. I will ask the relevant Minister to write to Members on that matter, on which I do not have any more information at the moment. We are aware of the creation of a new community police department last year, which has caused some concerns—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton raised that point. Our embassy in Khartoum reports that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has seen no signs that this new unit is behaving as a morality police, but I will seek further information and assurances.

[Sir Graham Brady in the Chair]

[Jim Shannon]

I believe everyone has mentioned the community police and the morality police. There is quite clear evidence on the ground that they are being used in that fashion; we are quite happy to furnish the Department with that evidence, if it helps the Minister.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

My ministerial colleagues are always grateful to receive any such evidence to consider. We have obviously sought assurances recently from the OHCHR, but we should always feed in and continue to do all that we can to make sure that we speak with absolute certainty on what the realities are on the ground.

How nice to see you, Sir Graham.

A successful political deal returning a civilian-led transitional Government to Sudan is absolutely essential for the country to continue making progress on human rights challenges. The UK will continue to work closely with people in Sudan, and with international and regional partners together to support the Sudanese dialogue towards an agreement.

The UK will continue to use its position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to raise concerns about the fragile security situation, as the penholder on the resolution to renew the mandate for the UN integrated transition assistance mission in Sudan—UNITAMS—adopted last June. We continue to be at the forefront of those voices at the UN. At the same time, we will continue to press the authorities to protect human rights and hold those responsible for violations to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed. I thank my dear friend, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for taking the stand; she is the special envoy and does her job extremely well. I am pleased that she contributed. She referred to a meeting, which the Minister also mentioned in her last point, and I would love to have that meeting with the Department and civil society. The hon. Member for Congleton also referred to UK aid. Where does that £62 million go? Does it make its way to Christian groups? She also referred to the conversion of women and girls and to the morality police. There is a clear evidential base to back that up, and we need to be on top of the issue.

The two interventions by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier)—she made three, but two on me—were very important. She referred to the UN, which the Minister also mentioned in replying to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald). There is a collective of ideas here. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West also referred to social media driving hate, and she is right.

I am pleased to have had everybody’s contributions, but particularly pleased by that of the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire. She is a vice-chair of the APPG, to which she makes a valuable contribution—she never misses a debate, to be fair. We are pleased to have had her contribution. She referred to hate speech on state TV, security forces actively attacking and victimising women and girls, which is a massive concern, sexual abuse and church pastors being arrested. She also referred to an atrocity prevention strategy. It was, again, a valuable contribution.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who is also a dear friend, always brings knowledge and passion to these debates. He referred to Sudan being in the top 10, and to the attacks on non-governmental organisations. He referred to church property being destroyed and believers attacked.

I genuinely always look forward to the contributions of the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), because she knows the subject and does it well. She referred to intercommunal violence, and to the fact that international partners must work together. She also referred, in her final comment, to targeting sanctions. I am coming to the end, Sir Graham; I know that you are looking at me—I am racing here.

I thank the Minister. I genuinely look forward to her contributions. I believe she wants to help; I believe she can help. This is somebody else’s responsibility, not hers, but I know she will pass on everything we have asked to the relevant Minister, and she will ensure that the issue is addressed at the very top.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered human rights and religious minorities in Sudan.

Turkey and Syria Earthquake

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am surprised that you have called me so early, Sir Graham, but thank you very much for doing so. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for leading the debate and for setting the scene so well for us. We will add our contributions, some of which will probably involve talking about people from our constituencies who have gone out to Turkey and Syria.

This very important debate takes place during a sad period for the people of Turkey and Syria. We in the UK are a generous society. We have proven that over a number of decades and especially in the recent invasion of Ukraine. We do our bit on the global stage to provide help to those in need, and providing basic support is the least we can do for those suffering from natural disasters. I think it is right that we do that, and I thank the Minister and our Government for all the work they have done to ensure that help goes out to the people who need it. We encourage our Government to do as much as they can, and in these debates we ask them to do more, but we recognise what has happened.

Millions of people across Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Cyprus felt the effects of the 7.8-magnitude earthquake, and thousands have been coping with the physical and mental aftershocks ever since. People do not know where their loved ones are, they have lost their homes and livelihoods, and there has been economic devastation. Some 47,000 people have been killed—unfortunately, we expect that figure to rise—and hundreds of thousands more injured. Many of those people are now forced to live in decrepit conditions, with no healthcare because hospitals are overflowing. Desperate recovery efforts will be ongoing in the coming months and perhaps even beyond.

I have had many constituents contact my office in relation to donations, and I am sure every Member present would say the same. Many are wanting to send clothes, blankets, shoes and other necessities. Some of them have very little, but they want to help. We still have the mindset that we had following the invasion of Ukraine. The amazing thing about this nation is that our first instinct is always to say, “What can we do?” I never fail to be moved by the generosity of the people of my constituency, and I know it is replicated across the country.

The people of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are generous and we dig deep. I am aware that some places are encouraging monetary donations to help with the devastation, but many charities and organisations seem to be encouraging other types of donation instead. I know that monetary contributions will be put towards dedicated emergency relief and rebuilding efforts for families in all impacted areas, and that might be a better way, but sometimes people want to give practical things to be sent right away, which is also a very important part of the aid effort.

The charities that have been instrumental in providing life-saving assistance include DEC, UNICEF, the Red Cross, Oxfam and Save The Children, and there are dozens more. I know churches that are active as well, and several of my constituents have travelled over to help with the dog search and rescue, and to work as paramedics. It has been heartening to see just how much we want to help.

The Red Cross has revealed that some 3,000 people are currently in temporary accommodation, with a further 380,000 in school facilities, and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to the 44,000 people who have died. To give an idea of the numbers affected, 380,000 people are a quarter of Northern Ireland’s population.

In addition to five mobile kitchens, 71 catering trucks have been deployed to provide food for people in the coming days. The Turkish Red Crescent is aiming to deliver some 50,00 blankets, 10,000 electric heaters and 25,000 sleeping bags. It is important that we do all we can to support the victims of the devastation, whether by donating online or by encouraging schools and other groups to raise money. The UK Government have sent a 77-strong search and rescue group that is helping to put families back together and find loved ones, at a total cost of £8 million.

Family links have proven to be instrumental in driving us to give all the assistance we can. We are here today to represent our constituents, including those from Turkey who now live in our constituencies, and those who are going over to help. Children do not know where their parents are, and family pets are wandering around looking for their homes. The impacts have been devastating. The Samaritan’s Purse charity is once again stepping up and helping. All these charities should be noted and thanked.

I hope that the aid we provide and will continue to provide can make a difference in trying to fix what has been broken in Turkey, Syria and surrounding areas. I know that my constituents are generous, compassionate and wanting to help, and they continue to donate where possible. That will be replicated across all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We say to all those who have assisted thus far, despite their own financial pressures, that their efforts are valued. We thank them most sincerely. They enable us to hold our heads high through their kindness and generosity, as we continue praying for all those affected by this dreadful tragedy.

Overseas Aid: Child Health and Education

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered overseas aid, child health and education.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today’s debate about this important subject. I want to start with a moment’s reflection. All of us here today are lucky to live in the developed world, and in the United Kingdom in particular. So many people around the world face such enormous challenges, and it is important to remember that many of those challenges are getting worse, as far too many people struggle with the effects of the climate emergency, war and natural disaster. It is our responsibility in the developed world to help those who have not had the same opportunities that we have had. Indeed, that is a duty for all of us.

That duty has been thrown into sharp relief by the recent tragic events in Turkey and Syria, and I turn first to the earthquake before addressing longer-term development issues. It has been simply heartbreaking to watch the horrific images of the earthquake in Turkey and northern Syria. The recent quake was the worst for nearly 100 years, and measured 7.8 on the Richter scale. It was, quite simply, an incredibly powerful natural disaster, and sadly the effects seem to have been made worse by what can only be described as apparent shoddy building practices and lax regulation.

I pay tribute to all those taking part in the response to this dreadful disaster—both those in Turkey and Syria, and those across the whole world. The Disasters Emergency Committee in Britain, local branches of charities, local communities and local residents who have taken part in collections are all doing their bit to help those in need at this most awful time. It falls to us to help, both in emergencies such as the earthquake or the recent floods in Pakistan and over the much longer term. I am sure that everyone in the United Kingdom shares those concerns and that commitment to help.

Let me turn to wider development issues, which are the subject of today’s debate. There is no doubt that the world is changing, but although many countries are developing, there is still enormous economic and social inequality across the world. It is truly sobering to consider the scale of this enormous problem. Even today, nearly one in 10 of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty, despite considerable steps forward in the last 40 or 50 years. That poverty is found in many countries, and in particular blights the lives of people living in rural areas and many of those who have migrated to the enormous cities that are emerging around the world. There remains extreme inequality in health and education, as I will return to later.

I want to make some broader points and recap the recent direction of Government policy. Turning to recent history, the last Labour Government made real steps forward. They brought in the 0.7% target for aid, so that the proportion of GDP spent on aid matched the amount recommended by the UN—picking up on work that went as far back as the Brundtland commission in the 1980s. It is important that Britain led on that policy, and there were very real results: 1.5 million more people received improved sanitation and water services, and this country helped 40 million children go to school. I also acknowledge the very important work that Cameron’s Conservative Government did in continuing that policy.

Sadly, the 0.7% target was scrapped by more recent Conservative Governments, which has left the UK presiding over a declining aid budget. Worse still, there have been attempts to rebadge other spending as aid, including the deeply mistaken plan to spend £3 billion from the development budget on the cost of housing refugees. That mistaken approach has knocked down the pillars on which the UK’s international leadership was built, and it has damaged Britain’s credibility around the world. Added to that, a botched merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has undermined delivery.

Development spending is not only a force for moral good, as I mentioned earlier, but sensible policy. Aid from the developed world is helpful and important, and although it is not the only answer, it can be a significant force for good. British aid has played an important part in helping those in need around the world. Our contribution has declined, and our influence and ability to be a force for good are in retreat.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate; he always brings very important subjects to Westminster Hall and the main Chamber. Does he recognise that, although the Government have a role to play, there are many non-governmental organisations and charities—I think of many church groups in my constituency—that come together to make significant contributions to health, education, job opportunities and ensuring that young girls have an equal opportunity to young boys? I can speak for the Elim church mission in my constituency as one example. We cannot ignore what they do in Zimbabwe, Malawi and Swaziland. They make a contribution alongside Government, and that cannot be forgotten.

[Matt Rodda]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his words. Of course, the work of community, voluntary, church and other faith groups is so important and makes an enormous contribution, and in many ways plays a leading role in aid around the world.

As I was saying, I am afraid that our influence is in retreat, as is our ability to be a force for good. That sad reality should be—and I hope will be—a cause for reflection and a much-needed reassessment by the Minister and his colleagues.

Raid of BBC Offices in India

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to make a statement on the raid of BBC offices in Delhi and Mumbai, and allegations of tax evasion following the BBC documentary “India: The Modi Question”.

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

I am grateful to my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for raising this urgent question, and appreciate his interest in the recent news that India’s Income Tax Department has conducted what has been described as a survey on the BBC’s offices in New Delhi and Mumbai. That began on 14 February, and finished after three days, on 16 February.

As everyone in this House will be aware, the BBC is quite rightly operationally and editorially independent from His Majesty’s Government. While I cannot comment on the allegations made by India’s Income Tax Department, the BBC has said that it is supporting its staff in its Indian offices and co-operating with the Indian authorities to resolve this matter as soon as possible. Respect for the rule of law is an essential element of an effective democracy, as are an independent media and freedom of speech. They make countries stronger and more resilient. That is why we regularly engage with and support different parts of India’s media. For example, the annual south Asia journalism fellowship programme, under the flagship Chevening brand, includes over 60 Indian alumni.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has previously said, the UK regards India as an important international partner, and His Majesty’s Government are investing heavily in strengthening our ties. Our broad and deep relationship, guided by the comprehensive strategic partnership and the 2030 road map for India-UK future relations, allows us to discuss a wide range of issues in a constructive manner with the Government of India. We continue to follow the matter closely.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his response, but I want to develop the question. Let us be clear that this was a deliberate act of intimidation following the release of an unflattering documentary about the country’s leader. Since its release, there has been a concerted effort to prevent the documentary from screening in India. Take-down notices issued to Twitter and YouTube have resulted in an India-wide ban of the documentary on those platforms. There has been suppression of the freedom of expression of the media and journalists.

When students from universities across the country have tried to organise screenings of the documentary on university campuses, dozens have been arrested, while others face internet blackouts through power cuts. As the raids on the BBC offices commenced, the Bharatiya Janata party spokesperson issued a statement that said:

“The BBC indulges in anti-India propaganda. India is a country which gives an opportunity to every organisation as long as you do not spew venom”.

As has been said:

“These raids have all the appearance of a reprisal against the BBC…They have come at a time when independent media are being hounded more and more, and when pluralism is shrinking in India”.

Not my words, but the assessment of Reporters Without Borders—strong words indeed. In the past six years, claims of financial irregularities and tax evasion have been used as justification for shutting down more than 14,000 media outlets and non-governmental organisations doing great work in India. They include such household names as Amnesty International, Greenpeace and Oxfam. That has had a chilling effect on journalists, human rights advocates and religious minorities.

The raids happened seven days ago. Since then—I say this respectfully—there has been silence from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. No Government statements have been issued, and it has taken an urgent question to encourage the Government to condemn this blatant attack on press freedoms. Alarmingly, the raids happened hours after the Government signed a trade deal with India. That has led to allegations that the silence from the Government is due to the proximity of the raids to that deal. In conclusion, can the Minister tell me and the House whether the Government intend to summon the Indian high commissioner, so that his counterparts can raise the issue with him?

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I noted a bit of coughing going on, which will give him a clue to a few things.

The hon. Gentleman raised important points. The UK’s support for media freedom is well known. Media freedom and freedom of speech are essential elements of robust democracies. As I said in my opening remarks, I cannot comment on the specifics of the allegations, because the BBC is co-operating with the Indian authorities on the matter, and as the BBC has said, this is an ongoing investigation and it would be inappropriate for it to comment further.

The hon. Gentleman made important points about the implications for NGOs and faith-based organisations. He knows that we continue to work with them on the ground. That is an important issue for him, and certainly for me.