Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alex Sobel

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for this statement on the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on legislative scrutiny of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I also thank my fellow members of the Committee, Lord Alton, who is the Chair, and the staff, who worked very hard in the production of the report.

The Bill is intended to prevent loss of life at sea and to deter and disrupt organised immigration crime. The Committee welcomes that intention. The Bill introduces a number of new offences targeted at organised criminal gangs facilitating unlawful migration, but the Committee is concerned that the new offences are drafted excessively broadly and pose a serious risk of criminalising refugees and other vulnerable groups. It recommends some changes to address that issue.

Clauses 13 to 17 create three new precursor offences. Those measures are intended to target the activities of facilitators and organised criminal gangs that look to profit from organised immigration crime. The provisions engage rights under the refugee convention—in particular, article 31, which prohibits the general imposition of penalties on refugees on account of their unlawful entry or presence in the country where they claim asylum. Those offences could potentially also interfere in some cases with rights under the European convention on human rights—notably, article 5, the right to liberty and security, and article 1 of protocol 1, on peaceful enjoyment of possessions—which are incorporated in domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Committee supports the Government’s intention to disrupt and deter organised immigration crime and to safeguard life. However, the Committee is concerned that, as drafted, the precursor offences create uncertainty, extend beyond the Government’s stated legitimate aim and risk inadvertently criminalising persons who ought to be protected from criminal penalty. The scope is broad, the thresholds are low and the penalties are high. In its report, the Committee proposes a series of amendments to deal with those issues.

Clause 18 makes it an offence for a person, while journeying by water to the UK from France, Belgium or the Netherlands, to have done an act that

“caused, or created a risk of, the death of, or serious personal injury”—

physical or psychological—

“to, another person.”

The Government should ensure that that clause is sufficiently clear and defined, reflects the legitimate aim that it is intended to achieve and is proportionate to that aim. In particular, the Committee believes that a mental element should be introduced to ensure that only conduct that is intentional or reckless is criminalised.

The Bill will repeal the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 in its entirety, as well as certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Repealing the 2024 Act removes the significant incompatibilities identified in the predecessor JCHR’s report. However, certain provisions of the 2023 Act have been kept, which raises human rights concerns. Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act modifies the common-law position such that it is for the Secretary of State, not the courts, to determine what is a reasonable period of detention. The Committee agrees with its predecessor Committee and recommends repeal of section 12 to restore certainty and ensure compliance with article 5 of the ECHR. Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act broadens the public order disqualification in section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The Committee believes that that provision is not compatible with the UK’s obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings and article 4 of the ECHR, on prohibition of slavery and forced labour. The Committee recommends repeal of the provision.

Section 59 of the IMA amends section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which provides that asylum claims and human rights claims from nationals of listed states must be declared inadmissible. The Committee believes that it must be possible for such individuals who face a real risk of persecution on return to make a protection or human rights claim, which must be considered on its merits, in order to guard against the risk of refoulement. If the Government choose to bring section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act into force, they should, at the very least, periodically review the list of safe countries, with particular consideration of the rights of minority groups. In 2023, Georgia, India and Albania were added to the list of safe states to speed up the process of returning people who have travelled from those countries illegally, but we understand those states to be high risk in particular for LGBTQI+ people. It is therefore important that the Government take notice of the universal periodic review by the United Nations Human Rights Council of states listed, as well as other assessments, in order to judge their safety for specific groups, particularly those from the LGBTQI community.

Section 62 of the IMA means that if a person making a human rights or asylum claim does not allow the Home Office to look at everything, including private information, on their phone, then the Home Office shall take that into account as damaging the person’s credibility when deciding whether to believe the person. The Committee believes that this provision should be amended to make it clear that the credibility of a claimant who has provided a reasonable excuse for their failure to provide a password or other method of access requested by the Home Office will not be affected.

Clauses 19 to 26 introduce new search, seizure and retention powers in relation to electronic devices. The Committee is concerned that there is a risk that the new powers of search, seizure and retention may in practice lead to a blanket policy to search and possibly seize and retain items such as mobile phones from asylum seekers, victims of trafficking and children. The Committee recommends that the Government clarify in the Bill how these invasive powers will be used, in order to guard against the risk of indiscriminate searches. The Committee also recommends that guidance clearly sets out that in circumstances where electronic devices are confiscated the authorities must facilitate the contact of individuals with their close family members.

The Committee is concerned that clause 35(7) and (8), deeming transfer of personal data to third countries and international organisations to be necessary for important reasons of public interest, inappropriately disapplies the normal safeguards in data protection legislation when data is transferred to third countries. The Committee recommends the removal of those provisions.

Clause 41 amends the current powers contained in paragraph 2(2) of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, which permits the Secretary of State to detain individuals liable to deportation on the grounds that their presence in the UK is not considered conducive to the public good. The Government state that the clause is intended to clarify that the Home Office may detain someone subject to deportation from the point at which the Home Office serves notification that deportation is being considered. However, the operational effect would appear to amount to retrospectively making it lawful to have detained persons liable to deportation. This does not comply with article 5 of the ECHR, which requires a lawful basis for detention, and article 13 of the ECHR, which guarantees an effective remedy. The Committee recommends the repeal of this clause.

The Committee believes that the requirements in clause 43 for imposing conditions such as electronic monitoring, geographical exclusions and curfews should be expressly limited to cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety. The Committee proposes an amendment to deal with this point.

The Committee acknowledges that the exclusion of individuals who pose a danger to the community is an important issue, and supports the Government’s intent to ensure that dangerous sex offenders cannot benefit from the protections of the refugee convention. Individuals will be able to argue against the presumptions made by the state regarding the seriousness of their offence and the danger that they pose to the community. This is important to give refugees the opportunity to argue against the seriousness of their offence and the danger they pose to the community.

Given the severe infringement on the right to privacy posed by the imposition of electronic monitoring, the Committee believes that the threshold test for electronic monitoring should be one of necessity and proportionality, not whether it is appropriate. Clause 52 should be amended accordingly.

Overall, the Committee welcomes the Government’s intentions in bringing forward this legislation but would like to see changes to ensure that the legislation is more tightly focused on criminalising those who exploit refugees and other vulnerable groups.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for making that statement. As everyone will know, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. It is one of the issues that I am really concerned about, in this country and across the world, and I always speak about asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution and human rights abuses. Has the Committee been able to ascertain whether there has been an increase in the numbers of those seeking asylum who are religiously disenfranchised and have suffered human rights abuses? Is that something that the Government need to address?

[Alex Sobel]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to address that, as I did not include those who have come to this country to seek asylum due to an impingement of their right to practise their faith or religious belief in their home country. We have seen an increase in asylum claims—I do not have the figures to hand—but the Committee’s consideration of that area in its inquiry on the Bill was in relation to the list of safe countries. Countries might be broadly safe, but not safe for individuals who are practising certain beliefs. I mentioned three countries, and of those the one where there are issues in that regard is India.

The Government should review the list of safe countries and have regard for the UN Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review in terms of the ability of an individual to practise their religion or belief in safety. That is an important consideration that the Government should take into account.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alex Sobel

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for having secured this debate. It is a privilege to follow the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), whose speech, giving first-hand witness testimony to genocide, is so important in this place. It is always a privilege and an honour to listen to him speak on Holocaust Memorial Day and on other occasions when he recounts his service, not just to our country but to the Bosnian Muslim community. This debate is always a difficult debate for me personally, as a descendant of victims of the holocaust, so I apologise if at any point, I get a little emotional and have to pause for a second or two. I am sure that everybody in the Chamber understands.

As others have done, I thank the Holocaust Educational Trust, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, Yad Vashem, the POLIN Museum—which is actually in the Warsaw ghetto—the Holocaust Exhibition and Learning Centre near me in Huddersfield, and those organisations that fight antisemitism today such as the Antisemitism Policy Trust, HOPE not hate, the Community Security Trust, and others. There are many organisations that both keep the holocaust alive today and fight antisemitism, and we should be grateful to them all.

This year’s theme, as we know, is “One Day”, and for me, that means that we have hope that there may be one day in the future with no genocide. It is also about one day in the lives of victims of genocide, when they themselves are facing that genocide every day, and know that that day might be the last day they live. They wake with that thought beguiling their senses, and if they are fortunate enough to survive that trauma, the trauma lives with them and becomes intergenerational trauma. I am not sure how many generations that trauma persists for, as two generations separated, I still feel that trauma, especially on days like this. I hope my children do not feel it, and are not driven by some of the same fears that generations of Jewish and other people have felt.

One of my drivers here in Parliament is that genocide must end and that we must strive for human rights for all, so I speak out for the Rohingya and the Uyghurs, and act as the chair of International Parliamentarians for West Papua. A genocide against one people is a genocide against all people, and we must stand together against genocide wherever and whenever it occurs, without any thought of our own interests. Benny Wenda, from the Free West Papua Campaign, gave me this message for Holocaust Memorial Day. He is exactly the same age as me, so in context, this is 30-odd years ago that he is talking about:

“When I was a child, my village was bombed by the military and many of my family members were killed. I have witnessed my own aunties being raped and dying of their injuries and my mother being brutally beaten in front of my eyes.

Although we carry this burden, we also carry great hope. Our hope is for the next generation to be free from persecution, free from violence, and free from oppression. One day. We carry the hope of peace, and we look to the lessons of our shared history to guide the way.”

I hope that more Members present might join the all-party parliamentary group on West Papua, and find out more about the genocide that is carrying on there to this day.

I want to finish by telling the story of one part of my own family. My paternal great-grandfather was David Laks. He was murdered by the Nazis in the Belzec death camp in 1942. Teresa, my maternal great-grandmother, died of natural causes in 1938 before the start of the war. David and Teresa had five children. Salka and Fanka were the eldest daughters. They lived in central Poland and were murdered, along with their families, in unknown circumstances—I really did not think I would get this emotional; I am sorry—by the Nazis.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We all greatly appreciate the good work that the hon. Gentleman does in this House, but we are also very aware of the good work that he does in Papua New Guinea; I think he has been an inspiration to us all. I hope that that gives him the chance that he needs to continue.

[Alex Sobel]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me that chance to pause and collect myself. It is very useful in debates such as this to have colleagues who will do that.

The middle child was called Zygmunt; I will come back to him later. The fourth child was my grandmother Regina, who survived the war and lived into old age. The youngest sibling was my great-aunt Marisia, whom I have spoken about in a previous Holocaust Memorial Day debate.

I am going to describe one day in the life of Zygmunt Laks and his family—his wife Guta and their son Karol, who was born in 1939. Zygmunt Laks lived in the Łódź ghetto and worked in a garage after the Nazis took away the family restaurant. The situation in the ghetto worsened; Zygmunt stopped work and just sat in the ghetto apartment with a large axe, waiting for the Nazis to come and take them away. There was an easing in the situation in the ghetto, so he decided to go back to work, but the next day he returned from work and his wife and son were gone. On that day, an SS officer shot Karol, who was just two years old, in the head in front of his mother.

Karol was my uncle—a child who never got to see adulthood, an uncle I never met. I often think about how small my family is: I am an only child of only children, with very few relatives. A lot of our family are just ghosts—just ghosts of the past who were taken away from us by the holocaust.

Guta was never seen or heard of again, but it is assumed that she, too, was taken to Belzec death camp and never returned. Belzec is one of the lesser-known death camps, but it is estimated that as many as 800,000 may have perished there in the very short period—just two years—in which it was in operation. Zygmunt eventually escaped the ghetto to Ukraine, but was killed by a bomb as the war was ending and never returned home.

That this part of my family history survives is due to my aunt, Aviva Hay, who compiled her father’s memoir into a book, “We Are What We Remember”, a holocaust memoir of our family. My father, who I know is watching at home, contributed to this account and very much keeps alive the deep and scarring memories of our family’s experience in the Shoah.

The most tragic thing for me is that the fate of the Laks family is not unique or rare; it is the common story of European Jewry. Today is so important, because we have one day each year that we can share and remember—one day to say that we will not forget—but we have every other day to do all we can to strive for a better world and no more genocide.

Community Debt Advice Services

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alex Sobel

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) not only for securing this debate, but for becoming a formidable champion for debt and welfare advice services up and down the country.

We are in the middle of a perfect financial storm. Increasing taxes, soaring inflation, the gas price crisis, the end of furlough, the removal of the universal credit uplift—the list goes on. As a nation, our finances are being squeezed more tightly than ever before, and what we have to show for it is an increase in personal debt. At least 7 million adults are currently behind on at least one household bill. The Bank of England has told us to expect a sharp increase in defaults on household and business loans, as well as a coming sharp rise in the cost of energy over the winter.

Perhaps it is unsurprising, then, that the newly-crowned most popular show ever on Netflix revolves around the central theme of crushing personal debt. We should make no mistake: whether through malnourishment, fuel poverty or, most commonly, poor mental health, debt does kill. It killed Jerome Rogers, who died by suicide aged just 20, having accrued debts of only just over £1,000 stemming from two unpaid £65 traffic fines. It disproportionately kills renters, the young, those on zero-hour contracts and people of colour.

But there is help at hand. Some of it comes from our own offices and the hundreds of dedicated caseworkers who work so hard for MPs, dealing with the broadest range of issues imaginable in what can often be a fairly thankless task. We all thank our staff for the work they do. Pre-pandemic research from the CAB found that more than three quarters of MP caseworkers had dealt with issues pertaining to bailiffs, and still more are dealing with a case load characterised more and more by personal debt and the issues it causes.

MPs’ offices, however, are not debt advice centres. Our staff do not have the time and, although I am lucky that my senior caseworker is also an experienced debt adviser, most of us are unlikely to have specifically trained staff in our offices. When I heard that MaPS was proposing a rise in funding for debt advice services, initially I thought I would be pleased, especially given that the predicted amount would rise by 60% by the end of the year; but my concern, like that of everybody else here, is that most of the funding is set to go to a handful of national services offering advice over the phone or online.

That change in funding strategy will have the impact of cutting face-to-face debt advice by possibly as much as 50% to 60%. I thank Unite the union for its campaign to support the retention of and possibly an increase in funding—it is defending not only its workers, but people in the most awful circumstances, and going above and beyond the remit of a trade union into broader social campaigning.

In Leeds, the decision will mean that at least three out of the four MaPS-funded services will lose advisers. For the benefit of those familiar with Leeds, that means that the Ebor Gardens Advice Centre is set to lose all its debt advisers, as will St Vincent’s Centre, and Better Leeds Communities will also lose half its advisers. To add insult to injury, Leeds City Council was not consulted prior to the recommissioning, and I am sure none of our other local authorities were either.

All those services are based in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), but they cover the whole city—a city with eight constituencies and 800,000 people. The important thing to remember is that those centres are not just there for debt and welfare advice; they are multi-purpose community centres. If someone goes in to see a debt adviser and does not have any food to feed their children, the centre will give them a food parcel. If someone is suffering from crushing mental health problems, they will be taken down the corridor to the counselling service. If someone has had nothing to eat that day, they will be taken downstairs to the café. Sorry—I am getting slightly emotional because I have a lot of experience with these organisations. I am thinking about people I know who have been to them. If someone needs to go to court, a person from the centre will physically go to court with them, hold their hand and support them through the process—an absolutely awful experience for anybody who has to go through it.

Those multi-service community centres cannot be replaced by a screen or a phone. The Minister really needs to think about that. We are not just talking about the fact that people will not have a service that can deal with their debt; they will not get support at all. Many, many people who face debt crises already have suicidal thoughts. We will see a big increase in suicide rates, pressure on A&E and the inundation of hospitals and mental health institutions, just for the sake of saving a fairly small amount of MaPS funding.

Those organisations, and so many like them up and down the country, do vital and essential work. Experienced debt advisers can be the difference between shelter and homelessness, between happiness and despair, for many people. They change and save lives. Once they are gone—once they have left the profession—it is very hard for them to come back. These are not well paid jobs.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a vocation.

[Alex Sobel]

Absolutely, it is a vocation—a passion. Debt advisers want to help people. They want to save lives. When they leave the profession, they are very well qualified to work in many other areas, including financial services, where they will be paid much more. Once they’re gone, they’re gone.

Every community needs specialist debt advisers who are available to those who need them. I am sure that, as MPs, everyone in the Chamber can appreciate that people need face-to-face support for many different reasons. That is one reason why we hold surgeries for our constituents, but we cannot be the last emergency service; we need these specialist services. I therefore ask the Minister today to stop the procurement exercise and retender it with a priority on face-to-face debt advice, as well as online and phone advice, so that we get the services people need and avoid a potential crisis in this country with severe loss of life.

Safety of Journalists

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alex Sobel

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Freedom of the press is at the centre of a free society, so I would like to start by talking about West Papua, whose people have been fighting for self-determination from Indonesia for 50 years. In the past month, hundreds of Indonesian soldiers have been deployed to the region and thousands of people have been displaced. In the Papuan struggle for liberation, journalists have been one of Indonesia’s key targets, with restrictions in place on foreign journalists and obstacles to receiving permission to report in the country. Once again, the prominent West Papuan journalist Victor Mambor was targeted in an attack after his reporting of the shooting of two Indonesian teachers in April. Similarly concerning is the fact that the capital of Papua province and surrounding areas have been subject to a month-long internet blackout, complicating the media’s efforts to report on the escalating conflict. The curtailment of journalistic freedom in West Papua is not completely new. In 2018, the Indonesian military deported BBC journalists Rebecca Henschke, and her co-reporters Dwiki and Affan; the crew were deported from West Papua after they hurt soldiers’ feelings when covering the ongoing health crisis in the Asmat region, which involved malnutrition and a lack of measles vaccinations causing a measles outbreak that killed dozens, perhaps hundreds—a lack of reporting means we will never know. According to the Alliance of Independent Journalists in Indonesia, there were 76 cases of journalists having to obtain prior permission to report in Papua, with 56 of these requests being refused.

The unacceptable targeting of media officers in Gaza by Israeli airstrikes earlier this month was another reminder of the importance of upholding press freedom. The freedom to inform is a crucial indicator of democracy and efforts to curtail it often come with human cost. Anna Politkovskaya was a reporter for the independent Novaya Gazeta in Russia and a critic of President Putin. Like many others, I was shocked and horrified when she was shot to death in the lobby of a Moscow apartment in 2006. In the trial relating to her death, the judge was clear that she was killed for her work

“exposing human rights violations, embezzlement and abuse of power”.

The sad reality is that I would no longer be surprised at such a death; it is estimated that 21 journalists have been killed since Putin came to power, and in the great majority of cases no one has been convicted and sentenced for the murders. That is not to say, of course, that the murder of journalists is a uniquely Russian issue. Many other countries have higher death rates, but nearly 15 years after Politkovskaya’s death the space for independent journalism in Russia has become smaller and smaller, while state-backed media have grown stronger and stronger. Many independent publishers have been forced to cease their publications, while Russian state-backed channels such as RT seem immune from accountability. The lack of accountability may or may not be a result of the clear message from the Russian authorities. Action taken against RT in the UK resulted in measures being taken against the BBC in Russia, while the Russian media are free to criticise the BBC as they see fit.

Russia is not the only state on a mission to reduce or remove BBC influence. Last month, I chaired a joint British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union and BBC event on the media in China, and heard how the BBC’s reporting of coronavirus and the persecution of the Uyghurs meant that the Chinese authorities cracked down, removing the BBC World News TV channel outright and banning the BBC World Service in Hong Kong.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman and I share concerns about the escalating persecution of ethnic and religious minorities across the world. Does he agree that journalists have a role to play in raising awareness of issues in China, Russia or wherever it may be, because that is how the rest of the word knows what is going on?

[Alex Sobel]

The freedom of journalistic expression is paramount, including in terms of freedom of religion. The hon. Member makes vital points.

The BBC’s China correspondent has had to move to Taiwan because of safety fears. China’s lack of press freedom is well documented. It sits at 177 out of 180 in the 2021 world press freedom index. Only Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea fall below it. In 2020, a year in which a historically high total of 387 journalists and media workers were detained worldwide, China was the worst offender. In its record-breaking year, at least 274 journalists were locked up for their work. The UK Government must move further and faster in developing an international strategy to defend journalists, media freedom and internet access from authoritarian tendencies across the globe. I hope that that is being discussed at the G7 today.

Of course, the UK is not without fault. The UK ranked just 33rd out of the 180 countries in the 2021 world press freedom index. In February, Andy Aitchison was arrested at his home after photographing a fake blood protest outside the Napier barracks, where asylum seekers were being housed, and still are, even though there has been a High Court ruling against the Government. The police held Mr Aitchison for seven hours and seized his phone and memory card. Mr Aitchison was just doing his job, exercising his right to report freely on the conditions in which asylum seekers are held. He was wrongly arrested and his journalistic material was taken. Still no apology has been forthcoming.

The Government must do better. How can we talk about press freedom without talking about the clearing house: the Orwellian unit that obstructs the release of sensitive information requested by the public under the Freedom of Information Act 2000? In a written judgment, made public on Tuesday, Judge Hughes concluded:

“The profound lack of transparency about the operation…might appear…to extend to Ministers.”

I look forward to the Minister clearing that up for us. As well as blocking FOI requests, the unit is alleged to have profiled journalists. Such a profound lack of transparency at the very heart of Government paints a very concerning picture.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation are taken out with impunity both in the UK and elsewhere. SLAPPs are legal actions, the goal of which is not necessarily to win in court but, rather, to silence the target. Powerful interests wanting to shut down stories can do so by taking legal action that they know will cost the defendant huge sums of money in legal fees and potentially take years to resolve. SLAPPs can be taken out by individual businesses, state actors or any other individual or group with enough money to do so. They may target academic freedom, political expression or, more commonly than ever, the freedom of the press.

SLAPPs can kill an uncomfortable story. They can also have the bigger impact of silencing other critical voices, creating the same culture of fear and silence as through illegal means. The Conservatives talk a good game on freedom of expression, but let us not forget that they have been known to exclude newspapers that they do not agree with from official briefings. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances on those points.

Freedom of Religion or Belief

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alex Sobel

Thursday 12th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I am deeply indebted to the hon. Gentleman for his work. This is not a self-congratulation society, but I greatly appreciate what he does and the role that he plays, and the energy, interest and commitment that he shows. We are pleased that he is in place and we hope that there will be a fruitful conclusion to his endeavours and those of the Government.

My next question is: will the UK Government focus more or most of its international development aid on Nigeria to assist the victims and protect the vulnerable from Nigeria’s insecurity crisis? Will they use a large percentage of their aid budget to Nigeria to provide more direct assistance to internally displaced persons who live in poor conditions and to enhance security provision for vulnerable communities and people, including the Christian communities in the north-east and middle belt where they have been particularly targeted, by the Nigerian Government’s own admission?

Finally, given the Prime Minister’s call for increased post-Brexit trade and investments in Nigeria, in which the Prime Minister’s trade envoy, the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), will be interested, what security advice and warnings are the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Trade offering to British investors? Those are all important issues.

In my role as chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, I campaign on behalf of all who are persecuted, not just Christians, because I am a Christian and I believe that my God loves everyone. That is why I, and all hon. Members present, believe that it is our duty to speak out not only for those of Christian faith, but for people of any faith and of course, just as important, those who do not profess a faith at all. That is why I now turn to the persecution that other groups, including the non-religious, are facing around the world.

Atheists, agnostics and other non-religious people often face extreme violations of FORB. Indeed, in Saudi Arabia, that great ally of the United Kingdom—questions were asked about that relationship in the Chamber today—atheism is considered a criminal offence, punishable by death. In the eyes of the Saudi Government, therefore, many British people, including some in this House, are the worst criminals and not deserving of life.

According to “The Freedom of Thought Report” published by the International Humanist and Ethical Union,

“even on the most conservative estimates, there are untold millions of de facto humanists, atheists and otherwise religiously unaffiliated people living in countries where they face discrimination or outright persecution, both in society and at the hands of the state. In the most extreme cases, the non-religious are told that…to promote humanist values…is a kind of criminal attack on culture.”

Again, that is simply unacceptable.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I praise the hon. Gentleman for his dogged determination in bringing debates on this subject to the House and pursuing these issues. Does he agree that the media abroad and in the UK sometimes fuel the violence against and harassment of people of faith and, as he mentioned, people without faith by misrepresenting who they are and what they think? That can have as much of an effect on people as, for instance, state violence.

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I think the media have a lot to answer for, on not just this but many subjects. They influence opinion and focus attention unfairly.

Of course, it is not only the non-religious who are suffering. Just under two weeks ago, on 1 March, the Independent Tribunal into Forced Organ Harvesting from Prisoners of Conscience in China, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice, QC, released its full judgment. Its interim judgement, released in 2018, declared that forced organ harvesting from religious prisoners of conscience was taking place. The final judgment confirms that view and declares:

“Forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one—and probably the main—source of organ supply. The concerted persecution and medical testing of the Uyghurs is more recent and it may be that evidence of forced organ harvesting of this group may emerge in due course.”

After yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on that very issue, I am aware that it is emerging. The judgment continues:

“The Tribunal has had no evidence that the significant infrastructure associated with China’s transplantation industry has been dismantled”,

which is disappointing,

“and absent a satisfactory explanation as to the source of readily available organs concludes that forced organ harvesting continues till today.”

I have a nephew back home who had to wait five or six years for a kidney transplant. I understand that the wait it is partly about age and getting older, but it is also about availability. Someone could go to China almost any day, any week, and receive an organ. How can that happen? Even though it is a bigger nation, it poses a question.

Thousands of miles away in Westminster, it is sometimes hard to appreciate the horror of that statement—forced organ harvesting on a commercial scale. It is hard not to wonder how anyone could treat their fellow humans so cruelly. I also wonder how many more will suffer that fate before the UK Government—my Government—take action. I wonder how long the Government will refuse to acknowledge the evidence, which includes admissions from doctors in leading Chinese transplant hospitals. I wonder how history will remember those who ignored what Lord Alton of Liverpool described as a practice comparable with,

“‘the worst atrocities committed in conflicts of the 20th century’, including the gassing of Jews by the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge massacres in Cambodia”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 March 2020; Vol. 802, c. 390.]

The Government say that the World Health Organisation has found China’s transplant system to be legitimate. I find that incredible. It is a system in which it takes two to three weeks to get an organ donation, compared with two to three years in the UK. If the system is legitimate, it is the envy of the world and it is a matter of the utmost priority that the NHS should learn from China to save British lives. If it is legitimate, it is an absolute dereliction of responsibility by the UK Government that they have not done everything in their power to understand how China’s system works, so we can replicate its efficiency in the UK.

Indeed, last year, 34 parliamentarians from both Houses wrote a letter to the WHO director general to request that information, but despite chasing it several times with his office, the WHO did not respond. Surely, if the Chinese system is legitimate, the WHO should be begging the Chinese Government to share their medical marvel with the world, but we all know the real reason why organ transplants are available. The Government are not doing that, and the evidence tells us why.

Beyond Falun Gong practitioners, Uighur Muslims are also suffering in China, as we discussed in yesterday’s debate with the same Minister present. I spoke then as well—in this room, probably from this seat—about China’s treatment of its Uighur population. We learned that “hundreds of thousands”, in fact probably between 1 million and 3 million, are imprisoned in China and that many have experienced acts of torture.

Muslims are not just being persecuted in China, however. Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar have suffered what has been described by the United Nations as a

“textbook example of ethnic cleansing”.

The Rohingya were stripped of their citizenship in 1982 and suffered systematic persecution by Buddhist nationalists. That culminated in a brutal military offensive in August 2017 that killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more, who were forced into neighbouring Bangladesh. We thank Bangladesh for stepping up and reaching out.

In a worrying parallel, at the end of July 2018, in Assam, the Indian Government effectively stripped 4 million people, mostly Muslims, of their citizenship, and branded them illegal immigrants from Bangladesh amid an atmosphere of rising Hindu nationalism. Muslims in India also claim that they are being persecuted by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act passed by the Indian Parliament in December, which provides a fast track to Indian citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from India’s neighbours. Protests erupted across India in response to the law, which is seen by many as discriminatory against Muslims.

Insect Population

Debate between Jim Shannon and Alex Sobel

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to Westminster Hall. I declare an interest, as a farmer, landowner and member of the Ulster Farmers Union. I will make the very clear point that we, as farmers and landowners, have a critical role to play in this process, because on the land that we control, farm and look after as stewards we can improve the habitat, which we do, for example with more hedgerows. On my farm, for instance, I have seen an increase in the number of insects, including butterflies, and small birds, and that has happened because I have retained the habitat, including the hedgerows. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore feel that farmers, landowners and others who steward the land have a great responsibility, and that it is time for the Government to work alongside the Ulster Farmers Union, the National Farmers Union and landowners to make the land suitable for insects?

[Alex Sobel]

Absolutely. The majority of the UK’s land area is still rural, and farmers will have a huge role in this process. We need to see quite a radical change in farming, one that moves away from artificial pesticides and towards natural land management.