Forced Organ Removal: China

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered forced organ removal in China.

This is a very difficult subject to talk about, but there are those of us who have followed this issue in China and listened to people who have come to the House to present petitions and speak to us about it. We have watched the film on the issue and had a briefing in the House as well. Many Members of the House have been vociferous and outspoken on the issue. I commend the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for the hard work that she has done on it in the House. We admire her courage, tenacity and commitment to the issue. The rest of us will add our contribution. I know that her contribution will be as important as everyone else’s. I thank every hon. Member who has come today to participate. The abstract nature of the debate may have precluded many from attending. I am grateful to those who are here for acknowledging that the issue is worthy of time and attention from Members of the House.

My boys like to watch crime dramas, as many of us do. Some of them are so far-fetched that I scoff along with them. However, others are too chillingly real. The idea of someone having organs cut out of them and waking up in a bath of ice has long been an urban legend. However, today’s debate is not based on a horror story as we approach Halloween; it is not make-believe. It is a horror that is all too real in China. As it has been brought to our attention, I feel that we have a role to play in returning this scenario to the realms of urban legend. That is why the debate is so important.

This story, which is almost too dreadful to believe, was first revealed in March 2006, when a woman stated that as many as 4,000 Falun Gong had been killed for their organs at the hospital in which she had worked. I had the privilege of meeting some of the families of those people in this House, and a charitable organisation was also involved, so we know some of the stories at first hand. That lady said that her husband, a surgeon at the same hospital outside the north-eastern city of Shenyang, had disclosed to her that he had removed corneas from the living bodies of 2,000 Falun Gong adherents. A week later, a Chinese military doctor not only corroborated the woman’s account but claimed that such atrocities were taking place in 36 different concentration camps throughout the country. He said that he had also witnessed Falun Gong being transported in massive numbers across the country in cattle trains, at night and under the cover of tight security. People may think that that is something from the history of the second world war, but the transportation of people in cattle trains is all too real. As I said, it happens at night and under the cover of tight security.

In 2006, two prominent Canadians—David Kilgour, a former MP, and David Matas, a human rights lawyer—published a report for the Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong in China, in which they gave credibility to claims that the Chinese authorities were harvesting organs from executed members of the group. Victims were held in concentration camps prior to dissection, after which the remains were immediately cremated, as if the authorities could get rid of the evidence of their ill deeds by cremating them so quickly.

It was in July 2006 that Kilgour and Matas published their 140-page report. It drew

“the regrettable conclusion that these allegations are true.”

The investigation uncovered the on-demand nature of organ transplants in China; there is an abundance of organs despite the lack of a functional donation system. Ten years later, on 22 June 2016, they published an update to their report. It shows the continued expansion of transplantation capacity—organ harvesting first came to light in 2006—the driving factors behind the industry’s growth, and the role of the ruling party, Government agencies and individual officials in implementing and perpetuating the systematic killing of prisoners of conscience for their organs. We are talking about those of the Falun Gong belief, those of Christian beliefs, who have been persecuted, people serving time in jail and those from other ethnic groups.

The harvesting is done on an industrial scale, as some of the figures illustrate very well. Although Chinese officials typically say that China transplants about 10,000 organs a year, the update to the report shows that that figure is surpassed by just a few hospitals alone. We can say, based on Government-imposed minimum capacity requirements for transplant centres, that the total system-wide capacity since 2000 would have easily reached more than 1 million transplants. Given that the vast majority of those hospitals far exceed the minimum requirements, the number of transplants performed in China is staggering. As I said, it is on an industrial scale.

The Conservative Party Human Rights Commission heard from at least two witnesses on the harrowing practice of forced organ harvesting. Notably, it heard from Ethan Gutmann, who has spent several years investigating this appalling practice—the forced removal of internal organs from live individuals for transplant. It also notes the information provided on behalf of UK Falun Gong practitioners in the written submission. Ms Lin stated:

“There have been persistent allegations that large numbers of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience have been killed to supply China’s lucrative trade in vital organs. Uyghurs and other prisoners of conscience may have been victimised in a similar way.”

Former Falun Gong prisoners report being subjected to targeted medical examinations and blood tests in custody that appear designed to assess the health and compatibility for potential transplant of their organs, Ms Lin claimed. She told the commission:

“Concern stems in part from the significant discrepancy between the number of organ transplants performed and the known sources of organs: even when we include death row inmates, the number of transplants performed in China is far too high. The short wait times achieved by transplant hospitals suggest that people are killed on demand for their organs.”

That is the horror of what is taking place in China. The House must today illustrate the issues clearly and ensure that we speak on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves—those with no voice.

Ethan Gutmann has stated, based on meticulous research into individual hospital accommodations for transplant recipients, occupancy rates and a full accounting of the overall number of hospitals in China carrying out organ transplants, that the claims by the Chinese of performing 10,000 organ transplants a year are intentionally low; they are keeping them low on purpose. The new report estimates that a minimum of 56,000 and perhaps as many as 110,000 organ transplants are being conducted a year, leading to an estimated overall total of 1.8 million organ transplants since 2001. Previous speculation that approximately 40,000 to 65,000 organs were extracted from prisoners of conscience is now seen as a serious underestimate, particularly as the number of Chinese hospitals that have informally confirmed the use of Falun Gong prisoners as a primary organ source continues to grow.

I am very concerned and I have tabled questions in the House, as other hon. Members have, on the issue. Organ tourism to China takes place. People in western countries find out about an organ that may be available in China at short notice. Given how quickly these things happen, there has to be an organised, established method of harvesting the organs so that those who come from the west can come across and get the transplant that they need so much. I urge the Government to take action on that issue as well. I know that that is not exactly in the portfolio of the Minister who is here to respond, but I am very pleased to see him. I know that all hon. Members will get a positive response from him.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on putting the case and raising this important issue in so eloquent a manner. Does he agree that nations should not allow their citizens to travel to China for organs until we know that China meets the World Health Organisation guiding principles on transplantation and ethical standards?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for wisely putting the thoughts of everyone in this Chamber today on record. I totally agree with her—I think we all do—and that is one of the things we hope the Minister will respond to, because those going to China cannot close their eyes or ears to what is happening and to the question of whom the organ is coming from. The recipient cannot say, “I don’t know, but I need the organ transplant.” I am not taking away from the fact that they need the organ transplant, but there must be rules in place and China must be part of that.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, congratulate him on securing this debate and apologise that I cannot stay for the whole thing. Many of the issues he has raised are of concern to lots of our constituents; a number have contacted me about the issue and I have also lodged questions on the back of contact from constituents. Does he share my disappointment at the Government’s slight lack of engagement on the issue? We understand they have to engage positively and sensitively with the Chinese Government, but an issue of concern to so many constituents ought to be taken seriously.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for clearly stating what we feel. I am going to comment on questions other people have tabled and the response from Government until now. Perhaps, until now, we have seen inaction; today we are hoping for action that will clearly take this issue on, and we implore our Minister and the Department to respond positively.

In 2014 the Chinese medical establishment pledged that it would stop all organ harvesting from prisoners, yet the velocity of China’s organ harvesting industry does not suggest a retraction. Indeed it suggests the opposite; it suggests further acceleration of the practice. According to Ethan Gutmann, in a testimony to the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China on 18 September 2015—just over a year ago—the practice began in 1994 when

“the first live organ harvests of death-row prisoners were performed on the execution grounds of Xinjiang”.

In 1997, Uyghur political prisoners were the target for organs to be forcefully donated to high-ranking Chinese Communist party officials. This disgusting and disgraceful forced organ transplantation goes to the very highest level of Chinese government and those involved need to be accountable for their actions. By 2001, Chinese military hospitals were

“unambiguously targeting select Falun Gong prisoners for harvesting”,

and by 2003 the first Tibetans were being targeted as well. There is systematic forced organ transplantation taking place of Falun Gong followers, of Christians and other ethnic groups and of those who are in prison, sometimes for minor charges. Then China goes to Tibet, where it has some control, and it targets people there as well; its horrific targeting for forced organ transplantation goes far beyond China.

Gutmann’s testimony continues:

“By the end of 2005, China’s transplant apparatus had increased so dramatically that a tissue-matched organ”—

the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) will be listening to this—

“could be located within two weeks for any foreign organ tourist with cash.”

If a person has cash, they have got the organs. There is something morally wrong with that, there is something physically and emotionally wrong with that, and action has to be taken to stop it.

At this stage I must admit I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am not someone who excels in piecing together facts to create theories, but I can clearly see that the figures do not add up. There is something horrifically wrong in the system and it needs to be addressed by the international community and our Government, who we look to for leadership at this time. Those two Canadians began the process. The US Congressional-Executive Commission on China conducted investigations, and now we are raising it in this place. We have a duty to do all that is in our power to apply diplomatically any pressure that we can to say the practice must stop. For moral decency and human rights, it cannot continue in any way, shape or form.

We have to put this into perspective and I understand the pain of those who wait for transplants every year. My own nephew, Peter, had a kidney transplant when he was just a teenager as he was so unwell. Only after he had been given the transplant did he progress and start to grow and live the life he could. I well remember the stress of the family as we waited for the call to hear that help was on the way for the child. I understand the pain that so many people face waiting for an organ transplant. In Northern Ireland the transplant list is long as well; we had a waiting list last year of 177 people waiting for an organ transplant, and 135 transplants were available. We have a shortfall, so we need to address that issue. These are not just numbers; these are people waiting on life and death changes, which is why I urge people to ensure they carry a donor card—I have done so for many years and we have a very progressive donor donation and transplant system in Northern Ireland, which we believe we should take forward—and let their families know of their preferences should anything happen to them, so that they can save a life in their own death.

However, to take blood tests and to kill for the purpose of organ removal is murder and nothing less—it could be nothing else. Those carrying out that practice must be made to understand that it can never be acceptable, no matter what the circumstances may be. I have two granddaughters and should their lives depend on an organ transplant, I, or anyone in the close family, would very quickly give one of our organs to them for a transplant. I do not say that boastfully in any way; I say that honestly as a grandfather who loves his children and grandchildren. However, I could never take an organ from someone else by murder, and that is what is happening here. For the Chinese Government to claim that they only take from those convicts who give consent can be nothing other than an exaggeration of epic proportions, and it must be addressed by all political means possible.

It is no good burying our heads in the sand. We have the information, evidence and knowledge—we have two inquiries from Canada and the United States—and they all indicate that rightness dictates we do something with that information. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) raised the issue in 2013 with the then Minister, only to be told that this was being phased out by the Chinese Government. Well, it has not been phased out. Three years later it is still going strong and it is getting larger and stronger each time, so that is blatantly not the case. In July this year I asked what the plans were to discuss how to deal with the issue with the UN. I was told, just this year:

“The Government has no plans to make representations to the UN on organ harvesting in China. We pay close attention to the human rights situation in China, including allegations of organ harvesting and encourage China to implement its public commitment to stop the use of organs from prisoners.”

Words are not enough, Mr Gapes.

“Our current assessment of the human rights situation in China can be found in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy.”

We need to do more. We need to implore our Government and the western world to take this matter on board and to act quickly.

Today, Minister, I am asking for more. I am asking that direct and effective steps are taken. Today, I am asking that meetings are arranged at international level to ensure that, rather than washing our hands of the matter, we do all we can to address it. Today, I am asking this House to stand and to say that the forced removal of organs from any person in any place in the world can never be acceptable, and that this Government will be known as one that speaks out for those with no voice—many of whom, in this case, are imprisoned owing to their religion. I speak out for religious freedom—it is something I am interested in and I am known for doing so. Again, I ask this House and this Government to take action and to do all in their power to see the end of this horror story practice taking place in our so-called modern age. The forced organ transplantation on an industrial scale is unabated and uncontrolled, and we in this House must take a stand today. I believe that we will and that this House is clearly united to make sure that it stops.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate and on his powerful speech.

Let us be clear about what we are speaking of here, because if what we are discussing is indeed the case it virtually defies credibility. But increasingly research and evidence is pointing towards what is being alleged, which is that the Chinese Government actively condone—indeed, are involved in—the murder of potentially thousands of their own citizens every year for the purpose of forcibly extracting vital organs including livers, kidneys, hearts and corneas, sometimes while those people are still alive, and without anaesthetic. Many of those people are in prison, mainly—we are told—for their beliefs or ethnicity. Often their families are told that they have died. They are young people in reasonable health, and their families are simply handed an urn of ashes.

Credible research findings strongly suggest that many thousands of people are being killed for their organs, particularly people in minority groups, most notably practitioners of Falun Gong—a peaceful, meditative practice—although Tibetans, Uighurs and, potentially, house Christians have also been targeted for political reasons.

The allegations that Falun Gong practitioners, Tibetans and Uyghurs have been victims of that horrific practice are well documented and strong, as I shall recount. The suggestion that house church Christians may be affected requires further research. Either way, all the allegations of which we are now aware are sufficiently strong to require investigation by the international community.

It is of the highest necessity that the UK raises the issue with the Chinese directly, and calls for an international inquiry into the matter, ideally led by the United Nations. Even if the UN will not conduct a commission of inquiry, our Government should investigate the allegations and look at alternative mechanisms to bring to account those involved in those horrific alleged practices. If Britain as a nation is to maintain its status as a people concerned about grievous violations of human rights, it is imperative that the issue is addressed loudly and fearlessly, in co-operation with the other international organisations and leading parliamentarians across the world who are increasingly expressing concerns about the issue.

The Conservative party human rights commission, which I am privileged to chair, has recently conducted an inquiry into forced organ harvesting in China. During the course of the inquiry, I have been privileged to hear, in this House, first-hand testimony of those who have conducted research into the nature of the crime, and first-hand testimony by way of a powerful statement from a former Chinese doctor, Dr Enver Tohti, who has been required to perform an organ operation on an executed prisoner—for transplant, he believes.

The House has been privileged to host the UK premiere of the film “The Bleeding Edge”, a fictional film based on the testimony of witnesses to illegal organ harvesting. It was harrowing. I am deeply grateful to Mr Speaker for hosting the film, and to the actress, Anastasia Lin, who starred in the film and gave evidence at one of the hearings of the Conservative party human rights commission. I am aware of other films on the subject, notably “Human Harvest” and “Hard to Believe”.

As I speak, the Conservative party human rights commission is releasing a report of the inquiry, which can be found on the website www.conservativehumanrights.com. It contains more information than I can relay in this debate, but I will refer to some evidence received by the inquiry. The report was written by the vice-chair of the commission, Ben Rogers, who is an expert on human rights in China and elsewhere. I pay tribute to him for his dedicated work in this field and to the work of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, the organisation for which he works.

Written evidence submitted to the inquiry included a statement from a former prisoner, Yu Xinhui, who wrote:

“Everyone in the prison knows about this”—

by which he means the removal of prisoners for organ harvesting.

“Usually in the prison, regardless of whether the person is deceased, if he is sent to the prison hospital, he faces the reality of having his organs removed at any moment. Everyone in prison knows that there exists a list of names. People…taken away, and no one will return.”

That list of names includes blood types and the health of patients’ organs so that the information is ready and available if a transplant request is made.

Yu Xinhui continued:

“I once asked a prison doctor, because this particular doctor was very sympathetic to us Falun Gong practitioners. He was especially sympathetic towards me, because we were from the same hometown. Once he told me secretly, saying, ‘Don’t go against the Communist Party. Don’t resist them. Whatever they tell you to do, just do it. Don’t go against them forcefully. If you do, then when the time comes, you won’t even know how you will have died. When it happens, where your heart, liver, spleen, and lungs will be taken, you won’t even know either.’”

Yu Xinhui had three physical examinations while in prison, the last of which was in March 2005. Many former prisoners of conscience have testified to having been subjected to physical examinations while in prison that went beyond normal medical check-ups and were clearly aimed at assessing the health of their organs.

The timing of this debate is apt, given new evidence that the scale of organ harvesting in China may now be far higher than previously estimated. The evidence has built to a point where ignoring it is not an option. There is now strong, academically well-researched information that between 50,000 to 90,000 organ transplants may occur in China every year and are, effectively, concealed by the Government. That is in a country where there is no tradition of organ donation. Indeed, Chinese official figures put the number of voluntary donations at a total of 120 for the entire 30-year period between 1980 and 2009.

Let me quote further from the Conservative party human rights commission’s report:

“Although there are a variety of sources of evidence, there are three key reports which provide detailed research into the practice of forced organ harvesting in China”—

the hon. Member for Strangford referred to those reports. Our report continues:

“The first, published on the Internet in 2006 and in print in 2009, was a report researched and written by the former Canadian Member of Parliament and former Government Minister David Kilgour and a respected human rights lawyer, David Matas, called Bloody Harvest: The Killing of Falun Gong for their organs. The second was Ethan Gutmann’s book The Slaughter: Mass Killings, Organ Harvesting, and China’s Secret Solution to its Dissident Problem, published in 2014.”

Both David Matas and Ethan Gutmann have given evidence to our commission. The third report, which was published this year, runs to 700 pages. It updates forensically those two pieces of research, is co-authored by David Kilgour, David Matas and Ethan Gutmann, and is entitled, “Bloody Harvest/The Slaughter: An Update.” I have heard Ethan Gutmann publicly invite from anyone, particularly from the Chinese, any evidence or comments that contradict the research in the report, but as of September 2016 none has been received.

The most important point made by the report, and indeed by David Matas and Ethan Gutmann in their evidence to the Conservative party human rights commission, is that the scale of forced organ harvesting in China is significantly underestimated. Their new research is forensic—they have inquired into the public records of no fewer than 712 hospitals in China that carry out liver and kidney transplants. Their detailed research leads them to conclude that potentially between 60,000 and 100,000 organs are transplanted each year in Chinese hospitals, which almost defies credibility. If those figures are correct, organs are being transplanted on an industrial scale, as the hon. Member for Strangford said. One hospital alone, the Orient organ transplant centre at the Tianjin first central hospital, is performing thousands of transplants a year according to its own bed occupancy data. Chinese official claims state that 10,000 organ transplants are carried out each year, but the authors of the report contend that that is

“easily surpassed by just a few hospitals.”

By way of background, according to Ethan the practice of forced organ harvesting began in China as long ago as 1994, when the first live organs were removed from death row prisoners on the execution grounds of Xinjiang. Dr Enver Tohti came to London to give evidence to us, and he told us about the process. He was a cancer surgeon in Ürümqi, Xinjiang province. In 1995, while he was simply doing his job, he was instructed by two of his hospital’s chief surgeons to prepare mobile surgery equipment—in other words, an ambulance—and to wait for them the next day at a hospital gate with the ambulance, the equipment and three other assistants. The following morning, at 9 am, the two chief surgeons arrived in a car and he was told to follow them. He did not know where he was going but, about half an hour later, they arrived at Western Mountain—Xishan—an execution ground where prisoners were taken to be executed. He described what happened:

“We had been told to wait behind a hill, and come into the field as soon as we’d hear the gun shot. So we waited. A moment later there were gun shots. Not one, but many. We rushed into the field. An armed police officer approached us and told me where to go. He led us closer, then pointed to a corpse saying ‘this is the one’.”

A few prisoners had been executed. He continued:

“By then our chief surgeon appeared from nowhere and told me to remove the liver and two kidneys. He urged me to hurry up, so we took the body into the van and removed his liver and kidneys…our chief surgeons put those organs in a special box, and got into the car. They told me to take my team back to the hospital and left. I have no idea where they went… That was the end of that. Nobody has ever talked about what we did that day. It is something I wish hadn’t happened.”

Not only is the scale of the numbers a concern; the speed at which Chinese hospitals can obtain organs is also highly suspect. Doctors will tell us that the time they have to get an organ from a donor to a recipient varies but that it is very short for sensitive vital organs. A heart or a liver cannot simply be saved in a freezer until it is needed, which is why the NHS states that in this country the average wait for a suitable transplant for an adult is 145 days—of course, we are in a country with a tradition of donation. Compare that with the many statements in Chinese medical publications that they can find an emergency liver donor within 24 hours. I understand there is even a medical journal that boasts of taking only four hours to find a donor. I am informed that the Chinese Government claim that the organs come from death row prisoners who have been executed locally to the hospital that is providing the transplant, but the coincidence of that number of prisoners happening to have, say, a healthy liver, happening to match the blood type of the recipient and happening to have been executed locally is simply too much for credibility given the numbers involved. An alternative interpretation, and sadly the one that is more credible, is that people are being killed on demand to supply their organs.

In the other place, Lord Alton has been assured by the Government that the issue has been raised with the Chinese Government as part of the annual UK-China human rights dialogue and will be raised again, for which I thank the Government. However, evidence suggests that the Chinese Government have repeatedly committed themselves to denial, obfuscation and misdirection on this issue. It is therefore appropriate that we increase our activity in light of the new evidence I have highlighted. Indeed, there is growing international pressure on this matter.

The UN special rapporteurs on torture and on freedom of religion or belief have both requested that the Chinese Government explain the sources of these organs and that they allow them to investigate. There has been no response. The European Parliament adopted a written declaration in July 2016 on stopping organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China that, among other clauses, states:

“There have been persistent credible reports on systematic, state-sanctioned organ harvesting from non-consenting prisoners of conscience in the People’s Republic of China, primarily from practitioners of Falun Gong peaceful meditation and exercises but also from Uighurs, Tibetans and Christians.

The international community has strongly condemned organ harvesting in China and actions should be taken to end it.

Owing to the severity of underlying abuse there is a clear need to organise without delay an independent investigation into ongoing organ harvesting in the People’s Republic of China.”

Similarly, the United States Congress unanimously passed a resolution in June 2016 condemning the practice of state-sanctioned forced organ harvesting in the People’s Republic of China. The resolution calls for visas to be denied to those involved in coerced organ or tissue transplantation. It expresses

“concern regarding persistent and credible reports of systematic, state-sanctioned organ harvesting from non-consenting prisoners of conscience in the People’s Republic of China, including from large numbers of Falun Gong practitioners and members of other religious and ethnic minority groups.”

The concerns in America are coming from leading Congressmen and Senators. I was privileged to meet Congressman Chris Smith in Washington DC last week. He is the fourth longest-serving member of Congress and is a remarkable campaigner for human rights across the world. He spoke at a joint sub-committee of the US committee on foreign affairs on 21 June. I will quote him at more length at the end of my speech if I have time, but he told the House of Representatives:

“Twenty years ago, I chaired a human rights hearing in my subcommittee with a Chinese security official who testified that he and his other security agents were executing prisoners—with doctors…there and ambulances—in order to steal their organs for transplant. Since then, this horrific practice has skyrocketed.”

The US Congressional-Executive Commission on China published its annual report less than two weeks ago; I was privileged to meet the group of young people who work for the commission and who produced the report. The commission’s chairman said:

“The Chinese government’s human rights record is utterly deplorable, continuing a downward trend over the past three years.”

That, of course, includes organ harvesting.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and for setting the scene. Clearly the world is awakening to what is happening in China; she is as aware of that as I am. Will the awakening that we seem to see in Canada, in the States and now in the United Kingdom precipitate a need for our Government to contact the Chinese authorities to ensure that they can respond now to stop this practice? The weight of evidence is growing every day.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The growing international concern about organ harvesting means it is vital that this country joins in and does not lag behind the international community in condemning these practices and challenging the Chinese Government accordingly.

I have two more things to say. First, as well as politicians acting, the international medical community must do detailed analysis of the claims made by these respected researchers. It is helpful to note that the president of the Transplantation Society, Dr Philip O’Connell, said at the society’s international conference in Hong Kong this year, addressing his comments to China, that

“there remains, in many sectors, a deep sense of mistrust of your transplant programs…It is important that you understand that the global community”—

I believe he was referring to the global medical community—

“is appalled by the practices”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West]

I thank the hon. Lady for that information. I will indeed try to attend the second screening of “The Bleeding Edge”.

[Jim Shannon]

May I recommend to those people who have not seen that film that they do so? However, if anyone does come to watch it, they should come prepared for some horrific viewing; many people seeing the film have felt unable to continue watching it and have had to close their eyes. It is a very effective film but it is also very hard to watch. I urge those who have not seen it to go and see it, but they should prepare themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

Thank you, Mr Gapes, for calling me to speak; I am very pleased to respond to this important debate. Of course, normally it would be the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), who would reply, but he is in Indonesia. So I am very pleased to take his place, in order to respond to the concerns about this issue that have been so graphically expressed in this debate.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate, and let us be very clear from the outset that any form of involuntary organ removal violates established medical and legal principles. However, the concerns that Members have expressed today relate to the most disturbing form of involuntary organ removal— “organ harvesting”. Organ harvesting is the notion that members of minority groups and religious groups in China are held in detention, are unable to communicate with the outside world, and are killed specifically for their organs, virtually “to order”. To hon. Members—and indeed the citizens of this country—the notion of organs being “harvested” and used for transplant, virtually “to order”, is particularly abhorrent. There is also the separate ethical and moral question of involuntary organ removal from executed prisoners, with or without their alleged consent.

As we have heard, recent publications, including some that have been referred to in this debate today, have brought the issue of alleged “organ harvesting” into the spotlight. The authors of such reports believe that this practice is happening in China today and that the victims are mostly innocent people who just wish to practice their religion peacefully.

My officials consider the Kilgour, Gutmann and Matas report to be a very important source of information about China’s organ transplant system. It highlights how difficult it is to verify the number of organ transplants conducted in China each year, and states that it is almost impossible to identify the source of those organs.

The report rightly questions the lack of transparency in China’s organ transplant system. However, the authors of that report make it clear that they have no definitive evidence to justify their allegations. They are necessarily forced to rely on assumptions, and sometimes on research techniques that are less than rigorous. Although I do not doubt the need to maintain close scrutiny of organ transplant practices in China, we believe that the evidence base is not sufficiently strong to substantiate claims about the systematic harvesting of organs from minority groups. Indeed, based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot conclude that this practice of “organ harvesting” is definitely happening in China.

[Jim Shannon]

The information coming from the US congressional commission is that it has such evidence in its possession. Also, I understand that the Canadian Government have initiated some evidence taking, which shows that there is what they refer to as systematic forced organ transplantation. If that is the case, and the evidence exists—I believe that it clearly does—will the Minister look at that evidence, that information, and on the back of it take the action we all wish him to take?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

In the spirit in which my hon. Friend is entering into this, I can confirm that we would be pleased for her to come and speak to officials to discuss all the details and the evidence to see whether we can share information in order to understand exactly what the facts are, and therefore what the policy should be.

There was also a reference to a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in September. We vigorously raise all human rights concerns on such occasions, although on this occasion not specifically organ harvesting.

[Jim Shannon]

I just want to recap on the organ tourism issue that the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) talked about. Have the Government had an opportunity to raise the subject with other western countries? For instance, are the Government aware of what other countries do about it? Is there a chance we could work together to address the issues of organ tourism and those who go abroad specifically to get an organ? It is forced organ transplantation, so we have concerns. It would be better if the western countries could work together on that. Is there an opportunity to do that?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

It is probably true to say that there has not been much discussion with other countries on this particular issue. The hon. Gentleman, of course, has a point: when countries work together they can be more effective. Again, I will ask officials to write to him about such an initiative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank everyone who came along to support and participate in the debate and who made valuable contributions. I thank everyone who made speeches, particularly the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who has worked hard on this issue. I did not say this earlier, but I will say it now. Some children of those of the Falun Gong religious belief came to a presentation in the House, and Becky James took part in a Ride to Freedom event to highlight the issue. The children were able to portray clearly what the issues were. I urge the Government to work hard to internationalise the issue to bring us all together to ensure that we can effectively persuade China to stop forced organ transplantation. If we can do that, this House will be working in unison with those in the rest of the world who want to see this disgraceful and awful transplant of organs stopped.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered forced organ removal in China.

Victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA Terrorism: Compensation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak on this very important subject. The right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have outlined the issues for us as Northern Ireland MPs, against the background of the massive loss of life not only in Northern Ireland but on the mainland. It is good to know of the cross-party support on this issue in this Chamber. I commend the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) for the way he set the scene. I was keen to see whether Labour, under its new leader the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), would see this as a priority, but obviously it does not. The right hon. Gentleman has shown an interest in the IRA in Northern Ireland in the past, but from a different perspective.

The IRA terrorist campaign led to the deaths of 3,750 people not only in Northern Ireland but in Brighton, London and Manchester. Each IRA bomb was Semtex that came from Gaddafi and the Libyans. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) very clearly outlined how Semtex is affecting things that are happening even today.

Sunday was the anniversary of 9/11, and we all took time to reflect, prayerfully and physically, on that occasion and on what took place. That changed the opinion of the world in many cases. It changed the opinion of the Americans as well, who in the past perhaps looked on the Irish problem as one in which so-called freedom fighters—the IRA—were doing something fanciful and maybe romantic, as they saw it. That changed with the bombing of 9/11, when they realised what terrorism was—it changes us all.

I commend my friend, Andrew Mackinlay, who is here, for the hard work that he has done in the past, and those people in the Gallery who are here to acknowledge this fact as well. Compensation and a form of justice is what we are after. The Minister has stated that he cannot speak for past Governments, and even if he could it would be unfair to ask him to do so.

The Americans are notoriously litigious—some lawyers are on speed dial—yet their Government stepped in to ensure that a compensation claim was pursued corporately and not through individual suits. The passport that we all carry in this House—I will just make this point quickly in the short time I have—contain the momentous words:

“to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.”

That is demanding upon other nations, but it is also demanding upon our own Foreign and Commonwealth Minister and Government. I have read of how EU regulations do not allow for the unfreezing or use of interest of Libyan monies in British banks, but I do not feel victims should wait for us finally to be extricated from the bonds of the EU to have access to compensation. That is very important.

The fact remains that my constituents, and the constituents of many of my colleagues in this place, have a right to know that their Government are working on their behalf, most especially after having suffered at the hands of terrorists who do not have to do the time for their crimes. The Good Friday agreement, and latterly the on-the runs scheme, has meant that for many the hope of justice has disappeared. There is still hope for these victims that their pain and suffering could be acknowledged in this way, and that is what I am asking for today.

In conclusion, in memory of all those who lost lives—murdered in cold blood by the IRA over 30 years of terror aided by Gaddafi and Libya—our Government will stand up and speak out. If legislation needs changing, change it. If European regulations need altering, do so. If others in the UN must be tasked to see things from our angle—in the way that the Americans were able to do—take them to Specsavers and ensure that they can see clearly the fairness and equality that we see clearly in this Chamber. Do what needs to be done and say what needs to be said. If we do that, we will be treated similarly to our American friends and colleagues. I believe that our Government must take this opportunity to prove that by taking actions from today. I fully back the comments that have been made and look to the Minister for his response.

Dog Meat (South Korea)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) on introducing it and on setting the scene so well. I will focus on South Korea and what I believe is its responsibility, maybe not to respond directly to this debate, but to take on board the views of those of us in the Chamber.

This issue has flooded my inbox, as it has those of other hon. Members, so it was important that I came along to make a contribution to this afternoon’s debate and to represent all those who took the time to email me, write to me or phone me about this emotive issue.

As the hon. Member for Hertsmere said, South Korea will host the winter Olympics in 2018, so we must ensure that this debate is heard in South Korea. It is not a matter of hiding what they do; it is a matter of stopping what they do. That is what we are aiming to achieve. We have been thrilled by the results of team GB, particularly those of the Paralympics team and our own young Bethany Firth, who took a gold in swimming, having trained at the local swimming pool not five minutes from my office. The buzz surrounding the build-up to the Olympics and the events are great for national pride and we take pleasure in seeing our teams do well on a world stage. This is what the Olympics are all about, and to have them tainted by concern about the host nation can never be good. We must focus on the 2018 winter Olympics and where they will be held. That nation must also respond.

I remember the shock in my history classes of seeing Nazi Germany hosting the 1936 Olympics, using it as a forum for its propaganda and political games. I was horrified and hoped the world had learned a lesson. Politics and sport must not mix, and although we have never repeated the mistakes of that Olympics, I have been worried on a few occasions.

I raised concern in this House about the Beijing Olympics, the human rights concerns that many of us in the House have, and the importance of a forum for dialogue. I do the same this afternoon, but on a different issue. I am not asking for us to wield an influence that we do not have, because we cannot make South Korea stop what it is doing, but we can use this debate as an opportunity to highlight issues and perhaps play a small part in bringing about change. One of those issues and the reason we are here is the petition of 102,000 signatures, many from Northern Ireland. Some were from my constituents who expressed horror that an estimated 2 million to 3 million dogs suffer indescribably in South Korea, the only country that officially farms dogs for their meat each and every year.

Although the dog meat trade exists across Asia, South Korea is the only country in which that trade is sustained via intensive dog-breeding farms, both large and small, as opposed to stolen or otherwise captured dogs in China, Vietnam, Laos and elsewhere. Many of us, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), have spoken clearly on the two issues. I commend them for that, because they have been at the forefront back home of ensuring that the issues are highlighted.

It is estimated that 2.5 million to 3 million dogs were slaughtered for human consumption in South Korea in 2014, having been bred and raised on more than 17,000 farms there, ranging in size from backyard operations with 20 or so dogs to large industrialised farms with thousands of dogs throughout the peninsula. I have been told by the Humane Society International that dog meat is sold in markets and restaurants as boshintang, a peppery soup that is believed by some to be invigorating—something to which the hon. Member for Hertsmere referred—or as a tonic in traditional health shops. There seems to be a misconception that dog meat can do those things. No, it cannot, and those who believe it can are certainly not thinking logically.

The industry is largely seasonal, with dog meat particularly popular during the summer months over the Boknal days of July and August, when 70% to 80% of the dog meat is consumed, even by those who never eat it at any other time of year. There is a tradition in South Korea of dog meat consumption at certain times of the year. Many farmers will have their dogs slaughtered just before Boknal, when they will fetch the highest prices, meaning that the collective suffering of as many as 3 million dogs every year is focused mainly, but not exclusively, on supplying demand for a soup consumed in just one month of the year.

Although the vast majority of Koreans do not routinely eat dog meat and surveys show that it is least likely to be eaten by younger Koreans, the “right” of others to eat it is still defended by a majority. Despite the growing opposition, the value of the dog meat industry was estimated at £1.02 billion in 2015 and it provides employment for some 32,000 farm and restaurant workers. HSI’s strategic approach in South Korea takes on board that context and it actively engages in partnerships with dog farmers to demonstrate that a negotiated, state-sponsored phase-out of the industry is both feasible and desirable for both dogs and farmers. There are some people in South Korea with ability and in positions of power who are willing to see change. There is a feeling that more politicians are open to discussing the cruelty-to-animals aspect. During the past year, a growing number of South Korean politicians have been reflecting increasing public concern within their own country and outside it as well.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alok Sharma)]

indicated assent.

[Jim Shannon]

I see the Minister nodding. What I have described will probably become apparent in his response as well. A growing number of South Korean politicians are also committing to efforts to provide better protection for animals, including dogs, so some of the work that this Government and others in the western world are doing to address this issue is starting to have an effect, and perhaps we can look forward to the stopping of the eating of dogs as food.

Let me give an example. Membership of the South Korean National Assembly animal welfare forum, which I suppose is like an all-party parliamentary group here and which was formed voluntarily by Assembly Members, has risen from 31 members in May 2016 to 51 in September. That has happened in just that short period—almost the time it took for this debate to be thought about and brought to this House for consideration. The number of members now equates to one sixth of the total Assembly. That is evidence of a change of heart among some in South Korea and certainly among those in the Assembly and political positions. That is where change starts, because they will lead the people. Many times we have to do that: we have to lead the people in certain things that we do. We have to give leadership when it comes to change that will be beneficial for everyone. The Democratic Unionist party gave leadership to Northern Ireland when it came to moving forward in the political process, and the people were prepared to accept that leadership as well.

The softening towards change in South Korea should be capitalised on. We need to see how we can help to support those South Koreans who feel that this practice must change. Let us work with those who want change in South Korea and let us make it happen. It is out of our power to demand anything, but I believe that the sensitive and cautious way in which this Government have approached the issue means that we can offer assistance and positively reinforce how that change will help the way others view what is a beautiful country that has so much to offer. We must use all opportunities to encourage our allies to offer the same support to those who believe that change is possible. We can make a change using the methods that we have been using so far. I believe that we can continue to do that. I look forward to the response from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), and in particular from the Minister. Perhaps he will indicate some of the changes that are taking place. If someone’s mind is open to change, change can happen. We want to try to ensure that the minds of those in South Korea are open to change. Let us constructively, effectively and positively make that change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alok Sharma]

I will come to what we are doing, and what I personally have done, in terms of dialogue with representatives of the South Korean Government. We must acknowledge that there has been some change. I mentioned the changes in South Korea itself, and the fact that people in that country are recognising the need for change. We must give credit where it is due. With respect, I would say that progress is being made. It might not be fast enough for all of us in this room, but it is being made. As I said, I will come to what the Government and I are doing specifically in terms of dialogue with the South Korean Government.

Before I explain what action we are taking specifically on the dog meat trade, I will outline our broader bilateral relationship with South Korea, which a number of Members mentioned. The state visit by President Park in 2013 and our annual Foreign Secretary-level strategic dialogue are testament to the strength of our growing strategic partnership. Our bilateral discussions range widely, from the situation in North Korea to security in the wider region, climate change and terrorism.

Numerous Members, including the shadow Minister, alluded to the situation in North Korea. I can confirm that this afternoon I summoned the North Korean ambassador to the Foreign Office and explained to him in strong terms that the British Government do not believe that what the North Koreans are doing in terms of nuclear testing is acceptable.

However, we share similar views with South Korea on many international issues; our voting records in the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council are closely aligned. We supported and welcomed South Korea’s decision to deploy personnel to the UK-led effort to tackle Ebola in Sierra Leone. It was the only non-western country to do so, and the fact that South Korea chose to partner with the UK is further evidence of our strong relationship. We welcome increasing bilateral trade and investment ties between our two nations. It is the strength of our bilateral relationship and growing friendship that allows us the space to speak frankly on so many matters, including the dog meat trade.

Indeed, this morning, before this debate, I spoke to the South Korean ambassador, Ambassador Hwang, on the subject and explained the strength of feeling here in the UK. His view, as he expressed it, was that the South Korean Government are trying to address this issue by raising awareness around pet ownership and educating the Korean public about animal welfare issues. As he pointed out to me, the number of restaurants in South Korea serving dog meat is decreasing, while the number of pet owners is increasing.

[Jim Shannon]

In my speech, I mentioned that in the five months from May to September, 51 National Assembly members in South Korea signed up to a group, similar to our all-party parliamentary groups, on the sale and consumption of dog meat. Have the British Government had the opportunity at any stage to speak to that group? If not, I encourage the Minister and the British Government to do so.

[Alok Sharma]

We talk to a range of organisations, but I am happy to discuss the issue with the hon. Gentleman subsequent to this debate. We certainly know that there is an opportunity and a need to engage, not just with the Government but with charitable organisations.

Turkey

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We speak regularly to people in DFID, and I used to be a DFID Minister. I have not had any direct conversations, as I have been in this job for only 48 hours, but prompted by the wisdom of the hon. Lady, I assure her that I shall do this at the earliest opportunity.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I, too, congratulate the Minister on his appointment and thank him for his statement. There was much concern about human rights abuses in Turkey before the attempted coup. During the recent coup there have been documented attacks on Christian churches in Trabzon and Malatya. Will he draw to the attention of the Turkish Minister tomorrow the persecution of Christians and ethnic minorities, and the attacks on their property and on them in Turkey?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We strongly encourage Turkey to continue to work towards the full protection of fundamental rights, especially in the areas of minority rights, freedom of religion and freedom of expression. We will continue to do that, and I fully take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point about the need to protect Christians in Turkey.

Sri Lanka: Human Rights

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the ongoing challenges. I will begin by talking about the history of the Sri Lankan civil war, but it is important to remember this afternoon that there are ongoing issues, such as human rights abuses, that need to be taken seriously by the international community and this House.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is most gracious in giving way—I did ask his permission beforehand. We should not forget the other human rights abuses that are happening in Sri Lanka. The National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka has documented an estimated 450 incidents against Christian minorities since 2009. Since 2015, 130 incidents of intimidation, discrimination and violence against Christians have been recorded, and a campaign to close churches continues to this very day. Although the war has ended, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need assurances from the UK Government and the Minister that they will do everything in their power to ensure that Sri Lanka moves further towards religious freedom for all, not away from it?

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing champion in this House of highlighting the persecution of Christians and demanding, quite rightly, that the issue gets greater Government focus and attention. Although a smaller religious minority in Sri Lanka, the Christian population is there none the less and also faces human rights abuses that must be recognised, tackled and dealt with effectively.

The Sri Lankan civil war ended in May 2009 and lasted some 26 years. It was primarily between the LTTE—the Tamil Tigers—and the Sri Lankan Government army. It is estimated that up to 100,000 people were killed during the course of the bloody conflict. In 2009, the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, described the brutality in the north of the country as a “war without witness”. Since the conclusion of the civil war, so much of that witness testimony has come forward. In my constituency surgery, I have been horrified by the descriptions of what people have suffered, and I have met constituents who bear not only the mental scars, but the physical scars of that conflict. Serious allegations of human rights abuses have been made by both sides of the conflict, including allegations of murder, sexual violence, torture, disappearances, the use of civilians as human shields and the use of child soldiers. Mines were used in the conflict, although many have been removed since the war ended. Many of the people at the top of Sri Lankan society—Ministers, military leaders, and figures in the judiciary and in wider civil society—are suspected of being complicit in many of the atrocities that took place.

Human Rights in Iran

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on setting the scene comprehensively for us? As he rightly said, the interventions added to that. As Members would expect, I will speak about two particular groups, the Baha’is and Christians. The Minister will know my stance on these issues, but it is important that we make these points clear in this House.

Iran is the powerhouse and major player in the middle east. It is the leading power in the region, yet there is still systematic oppression of minorities, particularly the Baha’i community. Incitement to hatred has been one of the major tactics used to encourage violence against the Baha’is. The regime has attached extraordinary importance to the demonisation of the Baha’i and turning Iranians against their own compatriots.

The incitement occurs at the highest levels of the Government, including the direct participation of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The propaganda has become increasingly imaginative, weaving together a broad and often contradictory spectrum of inflammatory accusations in absurd combinations that attribute every conceivable evil to the Baha’is, including but not limited to espionage for Israel, promiscuity, armed rebellion, cult-like practices, opposition to the Government and animosity towards Islam.

An example of just how effective Government oppression has proved to be is the recent simple visit of Hashemi Rafsanjani’s daughter Ms Faezeh Hashemi to one of the seven Baha’i leaders, Ms Fariba Kamalabadi, who was on a five-day furlough. That visit generated controversy in Iran second to none. Such a simple, friendly gesture caused a high-ranking figure to describe friendly relations with Baha’is as treason against Islam and the revolution. He stated that

“consorting with Baha’is and friendship with them is against the teachings of Islam”.

We cannot and should not stand idly by and such comments happen anywhere in the world, let alone in such a powerful and influential state. We have members of the Baha’i community here today, and we want to make it clear to them that the House will speak as strongly as we can for them. For too long Iran has been let off the hook, but with a thaw in the heated relations with Iran, now is the time to precondition our relations with the state on the basis that it signs up to and implements values that the United Kingdom and the international community can accommodate.

Back on 21 April I asked the Leader of the House in business questions about the nuclear agreement with Iran, one condition of which was that human rights, including religious freedom, would be preserved and protected. It is clear that that has not been the case, and we will make that point in our contributions today. At that time we sought a statement or debate on the subject, and now we have a chance to have that debate. We look forward to the Minister’s response.

We need assurance that there will be religious freedom for all in Iran. Some 1,000 religious prisoners detained because of their faith or minority status are currently in prison in Iran on death row. The regime has gone as far as to appoint a death panel to expedite the implementation of death penalties for prisoners on death row, yet the world remains absolutely silent.

There are 475,000 Christians in Iran, which has a population of 80 million. Iran is No. 9 in the 2016 Open Doors world watchlist of the most oppressive regimes. Converting from Islam is punishable by death for men and life imprisonment for women. There are many people in the Public Gallery from Iran or who have Iranian history, with ancestors and family members out there, and we want to make the case for them on behalf of their and our brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus Christ.

As I said, converting from Islam is punishable in Iran by death for men and life imprisonment for women. Those considered ethnic Christians, such as Armenians or Assyrians, are allowed to practise their faith among themselves, but ethnic Persians are defined as Muslim, and any Christian activity in the Persian language, Farsi, is illegal. Underground churches are increasingly monitored, which makes some people afraid to attend, and at least 108 Christians have been arrested in the past year. Interrogation methods in prison can be harsh and sexually abusive both to men and to women. Acid attacks on women are, at times, a weekly or daily occurrence. Such blatant, direct and indiscriminate attacks on Christians cannot go on. The UN resolution welcomed pledges by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on

“important human rights issues, particularly on eliminating discrimination against women and members of ethnic minorities, and on greater space for freedom of expression and opinion.”

However, we do not see that happening; indeed, we see the very opposite.

The alarmingly high frequency of use of the death penalty is often mentioned. Iran continues to execute minors, in violation of international conventions. It has also been noted that there have been juvenile executions for offences that are not considered the most serious crimes. There is clear and regular violation and discrimination against Baha’is, Christians and young people, so we cannot let things go on as they have.

The regime has at least 60 repressive institutions in the country, including several types of anti-riot agencies, several for torture and at least 12 others for filtering websites and controlling emails. Not only has the regime in Iran meddled in the affairs of Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza, but it has even interfered with the BBC Persian TV service, which experienced deliberate interference from within Iran from the first day of the 2009 Iranian presidential election.

Iran’s abhorrent record and contempt for human rights are not just confined to its own state. It exports those things and attempts to implement them beyond its borders. The evil regime in Iran tries to inflict its poisonous ideas on other countries not too far away. Globally, commentary and discourse on the nuclear deal suggests that Iran is joining the civilized world. That was the hope, but the reality is different. The evidence clearly stacks up to suggest the exact opposite. Iran may be seeing an improvement in its relations with the West, but it is not through commitment to human rights or an improvement in the regime’s conduct. We must remember that it is a regime, not a Government or a beacon of democracy. It is a regime that is still, in this day and age, oppressing people within and outside its borders.

Despite the election of a so-called moderate as President, the reality is that the regime remains in charge. Our ally the United States of America lists Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, and Iran is a sworn enemy of Israel and has repeatedly and consistently ignored UN demands that it curtail the nuclear development needed to build weapons of mass destruction—lest we forget its capability in that regard. As the Prime Minister of our strong and indispensable ally Israel put it, the deal

“reduces the pressure on Iran without receiving anything tangible in return, and the Iranians who laughed all the way to the bank are themselves saying that this deal has saved them.”

It is with great dismay that we are having this debate and making such clear statements on behalf of Christians and Baha’is, and others who are oppressed in Iran. Our closest allies are worried; minorities in the region or anyone who dares to speak out live in fear; human rights are out the window; and power is all that the regime seems to have any regard for. We need to keep a much closer eye on Iran and put pressure on it. We need deals that are carried out, and we need to make sure that the commitment to human rights is carried out and that equality exists in Iran as it has not so far. We need to up the pressure on the regime for its inexcusable actions if we are we ever to be able to consider Iran a worthy partner within the international community.

I apologise to you, Sir Edward, and to the Minister and Shadow Minister, for the fact that I must attend a meeting of the Select Committee on Defence at a quarter past 10.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. Over the next few days, we will make the final arguments on the question that will decide the future of not only our country, but our continent. We will be asking ourselves not only who we are, but what we wish to become. Whatever answer the people of the United Kingdom give us, it will be for us here in this House to apply that decision in the best interests of our whole nation. Like many on these Benches, I have made my views known. I have spoken out for what I believe in and for what I believe to be in the best interests of my community in west Kent and the whole nation. I have fought for this country and despite some of the comments I have heard, I will not be silenced when speaking in its interest.

I recognise that today, no matter what we say, it is no longer Parliament that is sovereign—it is the people, as it rightly should be. Whatever is decided in the ballot next week, that decision will be final—50% plus one vote will carry the day. To argue otherwise would be to threaten the fabric of our political settlement and undermine the legitimacy of this House. I urge all Members to remember that in the days after the referendum and not to question the integrity or intelligence of the British people in having expressed their opinion. What may follow is less certain, but, as we used to say, it will be our job to receive our orders, gain height, turn to the right and carry on.

Of course that does not mean we have to wait to be ready. On the contrary, we should be thinking, even now, about what an in vote or an out vote would mean for Britain.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The EU’s bureaucracy and regulations have reduced the number of fishing boats in Portavogie in my constituency from 130 to 70. Six major processing factories have closed in Portavogie and jobs have been lost—young people are drifting away from the sea. The EU has devastated the fishing sector in my constituency. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we want to ensure the re-emergence of the fishing sector in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we have to be out of the EU? For that to happen, we have to vote no and leave Europe.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman speaks well for his constituency, but the Member who represents Menai may talk about Menai Oysters and Mussels, which sells most of its catch to Europe and would probably wish to stay in the EU. Even in one industry, there is no single answer, and it is worth listening to the debate of the whole House and to all the people of this United Kingdom, rather than just one pressure group. Of course that does not mean that we have to wait to be ready. As I said earlier, we need to get ready.

The change in the stock market over the past few days has shown that Europe affects not only the fishing industry—for the better in some ways and for the worse in others—but investment in our entire island. Today, people are looking at us and wondering what the future holds.

International Syria Support Group: Airdrops

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Yes, we shall, and we will continue that in Geneva this afternoon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. According to the UN, 600,000 people are in danger of starvation, but the Syrian Government say that airdrops are not necessary because there is no starvation, so there is clearly a difference of opinion. We need to secure support from the Syrian Government and the Russians. We in Britain pride ourselves on our tradition of helping others, both domestically and abroad. If we cannot secure land access and if the only way is by air, will the Government support the UN in pushing ahead with that to ensure that there is not a humanitarian crisis and that people do not starve?

[Mr Lidington]

Yes. It was my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary who pressed at the previous ISSG meeting for airdrops to be considered as a last resort, and if we cannot secure the access that the UN, with our support, is seeking, we will have to return to that possibility.

Human Rights and Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak on this matter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on securing this debate. I will speak, as I always do, on the basis of my beliefs.

The UK has relations with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The Governments and Oppositions in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia view UK defence sales as a signal of British support for those Governments. When we look at that, we get an idea of where we are. When we read about some of the things that Saudi Arabia does to Christians and other minorities, it is shocking to think that the UK is cosying up to that regime when convenient. I want to touch on some of those things.

Converting from Islam to another religion is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia. Despite that, the number of Christians from Muslim backgrounds is growing. In recent years, Christians have been executed by the Saudi authorities for leaving Islam, and some people have been handed over to relatives and vanished, never to be heard of again—leaving Islam is seen as a great source of shame to families and communities in that strongly Islamic nation. Given such serious persecution of Christians in Saudi Arabia, many feel they have no choice but to flee—more Saudi Christians are estimated to be outside the country than in it—but there are still Muslims in Saudi Arabia risking their lives to follow their Lord Jesus. Christians used to make up less than 0.1% of Saudi Arabia’s population, but now 4.4% identify as Christian. We have to look at issues for Christians in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is included on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom list of the nations committing the worst religious freedom violations, comparable with China, Burma, North Korea and Iran. Saudi Arabia is also 14th on the Open Doors list of countries with the worst cases of Christian persecution. Christians are forced to live out their faith in secret. For example, at the end of 2014, Islamist police in Saudi Arabia stormed a Christian prayer meeting and arrested the entire congregation, including women and children, and confiscated their Bibles. They disappeared into the system, although I now understand that they have been deported—they were deported for worshipping their Lord Jesus. That is an example of what happens in Saudi Arabia.

As I have said before, Saudi Arabia’s indiscriminate blanket bombing of Yemen, the murder of innocents and the destruction of property rankle with me and many in this Chamber, which is why we are glad to have the debate. The UK alliance with Saudi Arabia in general, and arms sales to the regime in particular, constitute a threat to security, as Saudi Arabia’s aggressive and reckless behaviour in the region contributes to the dynamics of fuelling extremist violence in the middle east and worldwide.

Many have condemned Saudi Arabia, including the UN Secretary-General, Save the Children, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the House of Commons Select Committee on International Development. We are on the wrong side of humanity if we continue to cosy up to the brutal theocracy of Saudi Arabia, and we will be on the wrong side of history with regard to the region. I and many other hon. Members believe that we need to do the right thing and to make it clear to Saudi Arabia that things will have to change if we are to continue doing any business with it at all.

Detention of Kamal Foroughi in Iran

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I am very grateful that this debate has been selected. It deals with an important subject, which has gained even greater relevance in recent weeks.

Kamal Foroughi is a 76-year-old dual UK-Iranian citizen. In 2001, he was working in Iran as a consultant for the Malaysian oil and gas company Petronas. He had never previously been in trouble with the law. He spent his life socialising with friends, playing and watching tennis, and working for Petronas. He had no involvement whatever in politics—in fact, he was glad to be both British and Iranian. However, on 5 May 200l he was arrested by plain-clothes police who refused to show any identification or to explain what was happening. He was given no choice but to get into their car, in which he was driven to the notorious Evin prison. He was held there in solitary confinement for the following 18 months without charge.

Mr Foroughi was finally told the charges when his trial commenced in early 2013. The trial was conducted by branch 15 of the revolutionary court. It was lacking in even the rudiments of natural justice. He was granted access to a lawyer only the day before the hearing, he was forced to attend the trial without his lawyer, and no record or transcript of the trial has even been produced. Indeed, the Iranian authorities have never publicly mentioned Mr Foroughi’s name, let alone explained why they are holding him. We know that he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment: seven years for espionage and one for possessing alcoholic beverages, both of which, of course, he denies. As hon. Members know, the United Kingdom, as part of the P5+1, recently secured agreement with Iran on the joint comprehensive plan of action to deal with its nuclear programme.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter to the House for consideration. He will be aware of the UN resolution on human rights in Iran, where there is quite clear and blatant discrimination against ethnic minorities and persecution of Christian groups. Is he aware of any steps that the Home Office has taken to secure Mr Foroughi’s release, or of any discussions that have been held to establish what evidence, if any, exists against Mr Foroughi?

[Oliver Dowden]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. On his second point, it is hard to determine whether there is any evidence to substantiate the charges against Mr Foroughi, because the Iranian regime is so lacking in transparency. Even his own family do not know the details of what he has been charged with or the evidence for it. I understand that representations by Her Majesty’s Government have been undertaken by the Foreign Office, and I will come on to those in a minute. The matter has been raised at every level, including by the Prime Minister.

As I was saying, Members are aware that the United Kingdom has recently secured a deal with Iran on the join comprehensive plan of action. Many of us had reservations about the seriousness of Iran’s intent in concluding that deal. Its underlying purpose is to secure a path for Iran to normalise its international relations. In regard to that, the complete lack of transparency shown by the regime in relation to Mr Foroughi’s case is a worrying indication. It demonstrates a disregard for basic international norms against arbitrary detention and for the right to a fair, public, independent and impartial trial.

This May marks the fifth anniversary of Mr Foroughi’s detention. His son, my constituent Mr Kamran Foroughi, is up in the Gallery today, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for his tireless efforts to secure his father’s release. He has been joined by many other Members of this House in that campaign, and I pay tribute to them for the work that they have undertaken.

In today’s debate, I seek to draw attention to Mr Foroughi’s case, to make the case for his release on humanitarian grounds and to show the world—and, most importantly, the Iranian regime—that his case has not been forgotten. That is well represented by the fact that more than 130,000 people have signed a petition calling for his release on compassionate grounds. That really demonstrates how many people care about his plight. Since my constituent chose to go public last year, I have raised this case on two occasions in the House, and I have met my hon. Friend the Foreign Office Minister with Mr Kamran Foroughi to discuss ways of securing his father’s release. I know how seriously my hon. Friend the Minister takes this case. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has personally raised it with President Rouhani. I know that the Foreign Secretary has raised it with his opposite number in Iran, and that representations have been made by my hon. Friend the Minister.

One of the challenges faced by Ministers is the fact that Iran does not recognise that the United Kingdom Government have any locus in relation to dual UK-Iranian citizens. That puts them at particular risk when they travel to Iran. We have seen that in relation to both UK-Iranian citizens and US-Iranian citizens, and it appears that the Iranian regime views them with particularly intense suspicion. Their rights are often trampled on by the Iranian judicial system, and, given the stance taken by the Iranian regime in relation to dual citizens, it is very hard for them to be represented properly by their home Government.

Previously, the Foreign Office has warned of the risks faced by British travellers to Iran from

“high levels of suspicion about the UK”,

arbitrary detention, and

“the UK Government’s limited ability to assist in any difficulty”.

The Foreign Office used to make reference to a case in 2011, which we presume was the case of Mr Foroughi. That guidance has recently been removed, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address the risks faced by British citizens travelling to Iran, and the reasons for the change in that advice, when he responds to the debate. This risk has been very vividly illustrated in recent days by the case of Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, another dual UK-Iranian citizen. Nazanin was visiting family in Iran in early April when she was detained by members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard at Iman Khomeini airport in Tehran. She was transported 600 miles south to Kerman province, where she has been kept in solitary confinement. Her 22-month-old daughter, a—sole—British citizen, was stripped of her passport and taken away from her mother at the airport.

I know that all our hearts will go out to Nazanin, her husband Richard and her family for the suffering that they have endured. My constituent Mr Kamran Foroughi has been in touch with Mr Ratcliffe, and they have been a source of comfort for each other during this extremely difficult time.

This case illustrates the fact that the Iranian regime is alert to international coverage and representations. Since Nazanin’s case secured a lot of coverage in the media, she has in fact been released from solitary confinement and has been given very limited access to her daughter. Although that is clearly well short of the full and immediate release that her case demands, it is a welcome signal.

Similarly, in Mr Foroughi’s case, there are urgent humanitarian grounds for his release. Not only is Mr Foroughi an elderly man, but in 2011, before he was detained, his London-based doctor informed him that he was at risk of developing cancer and required regular check-ups. Since his detention, Mr Foroughi has received only one medical check-up, which took place last November. Again, that happened only after international attention had been drawn to Mr Foroughi’s case. Sadly, his family still do not know the outcome of that check-up, which is a source of considerable concern for them.

Given that Mr Foroughi has three years left to serve, my constituent and his two girls—Kamal Foroughi’s grandchildren—are very concerned that he will die in prison, isolated and alone. Iranian law allows somebody to be released early if they have served a third of their sentence. As Mr Foroughi has served over half of his sentence, I really urge the Iranian authorities to show some humanity and urgently release this elderly man purely on compassionate grounds so that he can finally be reunited with his children and grandchildren.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Dowden]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I was coming on to the point that UK-Iranian relations are in general improving, and it would be a very good signal of the warmth of those relations if the release took place. I understand that the Iranian Government have made the legitimate point about the separation between the judiciary and Ministers, but I feel that Ministers should bring to bear every kind of pressure they can to secure that release.

Sadly for Mr Foroughi’s family, they have suffered considerable ups and downs in relation to his case. They were initially advised that if they kept quiet about it, his release could be secured. That did not happen, so they eventually took the very difficult decision to go public. There were indications from the Iranian regime that he might be released on both the fourth and fifth anniversaries of his imprisonment. Again, that did not happen. The family’s fear now is that he may face the fate of other prisoners who, at the end of their original sentence, are then charged with further crimes, leading to longer and possibly indefinite spells in prison.

I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on his understanding of the current status of Mr Foroughi’s case and what further steps the Government plan to take over the coming months to facilitate the release of both Mr Foroughi and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he has been very gracious. The issue I want to bring to his attention is the gentleman’s medical condition. We all know that cancer can be exacerbated by stress and poor conditions. The hon. Gentleman has asked the Minister what contact he has had with the Iranian authorities, but could he also ask whether regular medical checks can be made, because those are very necessary at a time of critical medical and health needs?

[Oliver Dowden]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I was slightly loose with my wording earlier: the fear is that Mr Foroughi has cancer. Because he has had only one check-up, the family do not know whether cancer has developed, which adds to the worry. Again, it is a solid humanitarian basis for him to have regular check-ups and, frankly, for his release. Releasing him would be compliant with Iranian law because he has already served a significant proportion of his term.

Releases have taken place in the past. I was pleased to see that in January four American-Iranian dual citizens were released, including the journalist Jason Rezaian who had been detained for two years. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain to the House what lessons might be learned from those cases. I know that they are not directly comparable, but it would be helpful to understand the distinctions.

As I said earlier, UK-Iranian relations continue to improve overall, but many hon. Members would take it as an indication of the seriousness of the Iranian Government’s commitment to improving Anglo-Iranian relations if they were to use every means at their disposal to secure the release of both those citizens and others in similar situations. I will conclude my remarks by conveying a message from Mr Foroughi’s son and grandchildren. It is simple—“Please let Grandpa come home.”