Freedom of Religion or Belief in China

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Jardine. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this important debate on freedom of religion or belief in China.

I would like to open with a tragic story. On a hot August day in 2022, in Shanxi, northern China, more than 100 police officers descended on a Christian family summer camp, surrounding the gathering, forcibly searching and detaining dozens of believers—over 30 adults and 40 children. The police were breaking up not a dangerous gathering or insurgency, but a family day out. The camp was organised by an unregistered church called the Linfen Covenant House Church, and was a harmless event aimed at building church community. In the months that followed, pastors Li Jie and Han Xiaodong were arrested and reportedly subjected to harsh interrogation, including sleep deprivation, humiliation and torture. Church member Wang Qiang was later detained and tortured for weeks after refusing to renounce his faith or fabricate testimony against the church leaders.

It took three years for the court to process that case, but justice was nowhere to be found. Prosecutors did not accuse the pastors of violence or any threat to society—they could not. Instead, they charged them with fraud, arguing that the voluntary offerings given by members of their unregistered church were somehow illegal. Pastors Li Jie and Han Xiaodong were each sentenced to three years and eight months in prison and fined heavily, while church member Wang Qiang received a sentence of one year and 11 months. The community church insists that the three men had committed no crime, and that they had suffered simply because of their faith.

We have all come here today because we believe that freedom of religion or belief is not a secondary liberty; it goes to the heart of human dignity. It concerns the right to hold beliefs, to change beliefs, to have no belief, to worship in public and private, to teach and to live according to conscience without fear of intimidation, criminalisation, imprisonment or torture. That is why Parliament cannot look away, and why the situation in China requires ongoing and determined scrutiny.

What is taking place in China is not merely the sporadic mistreatment of a few isolated believers, nor is it the meddling of local officials. What we are seeing is the rolling out of a sophisticated system of repression, in which law, administration, surveillance, propaganda and coercion are all being weaponised to subordinate religion to the Chinese Communist party. The issue before us is not only persecution; it is the construction of an entire architecture designed to make genuine freedom of religion or belief impossible.

China’s persecution of religion comes under the broad policy initiative of Sinicisation. That term is made to sound mild, as if it refers only to making religion compatible with Chinese culture, but that is not the case; instead, it is political domestication. It means that every religious tradition must first be made subordinate to the ideology, priorities and authority of the Communist party. The goal is not merely to make religion Chinese, but to ensure that religion is stripped of its independence and made to serve the party’s political project.

Sacred texts can be reinterpreted, clergy can be screened and managed, venues can be monitored, publications can be censored, foreign links can be severed, and anything that escapes that framework can be branded illegal, extremist, fraudulent, subversive, or labelled as a cult. Religion must not simply co-exist with the party; it must be remade in the party’s image. Recent Sinicisation policies mean that all clergy must support the leadership of the Communist party, and must be evaluated and ideologically disciplined. All online or in-person religious activity requires a permit from Government. No child can be given religious education.

Furthermore, the sad story of the Linfen community church, which I referred to in my opening remarks, demonstrates that in China the law is always secondary to the will of the Chinese Communist party. China’s constitution appears to protect so-called normal religious activities, but in practice that protection is a joke. The same is true of China’s legal system. The party retains overriding authority over state institutions, including the courts and legislature. In other words, rights exist only to the extent that the party permits them to exist.

Evidence gathered by Christian Solidarity Worldwide takes us deeper. It shows how the law in China is drafted in deliberately vague terms to condemn believers, vaguely accusing them of “harming national interests”, “disrupting social order”, “resisting infiltration” or “extremism.” Such phrases are not carefully bounded legal concepts; they are instruments of selective enforcement. They create uncertainty by design and allow ordinary religious life to be reclassified as a threat.

As we saw with the Linfen community church, the vagueness of the rules means that donation to an unregistered church can be reframed as fraud. Similarly, a Bible study can become an illegal gathering; publishing or sharing religious materials can become an illegal business operation; and a sermon can become incitement to subversion. This is not neutral law enforcement; it is ideological criminalisation. Then, when the full weight of the justice system is brought down upon a believer, the defendant themselves becomes subject to serious procedural abuses. Lawyers are denied access to defendants, cases are shrouded in secrecy, and detainees can be isolated from family and counsel for prolonged periods, placed in legal black holes where torture and coercion become far more likely.

The case of the Linfen community church tells us a great deal. It tells us that family church life can be raided; it tells us that children are not shielded from the machinery of repression; it tells us that secret detention and torture remain live concerns; and it tells us that “fraud” is being used not as an honest response to dishonesty, but as a legal fiction to criminalise churches that refuse to submit to state control.

The situation in Xinjiang illustrates one of the most severe forms of ethno-religious persecution in China today, and as chair of the all-party group on Uyghurs, this topic is very close to my heart. Since 2016, the Xinjiang region has been transformed into one of the most heavily policed areas in the world, under a so-called counter-extremism campaign, marked by pervasive surveillance, forced interrogation and mass incarceration. It is worth pointing out that not all Uyghurs are Muslim and that non-Muslim Uyghurs are also persecuted.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. With respect to the Uyghurs, does she agree that what we are witnessing in Xinjiang and elsewhere in China is not simply a matter of restricted religious freedoms, but something far more grave? She points to the fact that the Uyghurs are subject to mass detentions and so-called re-education camps, and are used in forced labour by the Chinese Government. Does she agree that this bears all the hallmarks of crimes against humanity and, as many credible voices have argued, may well constitute a genocide?

[Ms Rimmer]

I do agree, and I will come to that later. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has said more than I was going to say—I thought I was saying too much. Yes, he is absolutely right, and it is dangerous for us all.

The situation in Xinjiang illustrates one of the most severe forms of ethnoreligious persecution in China. It is worth pointing out that not all Uyghurs are Muslim, and not all Muslim Uyghurs are persecuted. Independent estimates suggest that between 1 million and 2 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have been detained in camps and prisons, with many later transferred into long-term sentences. Alongside that, Uyghur imams, scholars and religious leaders have been systematically targeted, with many detained in prisons for decades or dying in custody, underscoring the deliberate dismantling of religious leadership and community life. Uyghurs have been punished for everyday religious practice, including praying, fasting during Ramadan, teaching the Quran or even using traditional greetings, while mosques and shrines have been demolished and altered, children separated into state-run schools, and homes subjected to constant monitoring.

At the same time, ordinary expressions of the Islamic faith have been criminalised, and the wider system of repression has expanded beyond detention into forced labour, cultural destruction and enforced assimilation. Coercive labour transfer programmes have expanded across multiple sectors, with significant global implications for supply chains. The trajectory is now being further entrenched through new legislation, including the 2026 ethnic unity law, which promotes a single national identity, expands ideological control over religion and culture, and introduces broad penalties for behaviour that is deemed to undermine ethnic unity, effectively formalising a system that has already devastated the Uyghurs’ religious and cultural life. Thanks to many hard-working advocates —such as Rahima Mahmut, Benedict Rodgers and Lord Alton, to name a few—the Uyghur tribunal has concluded that a genocide is taking place in China, including through the sterilisation of Uyghur women. That finding was echoed by the UK Parliament, which voted to recognise the atrocities as a genocide in April 2021.

Evidence from human rights organisations describes the regulations governing Tibetan Buddhist temples, reincarnation and monastic education, including the prohibition on allowing children of compulsory school age to study scriptures in temples. Ordinary religious expression is recast as a threat to state security. Falun Gong practitioners have also faced extreme persecution, including arrests, torture and deaths in custody, with figures suggesting that more than 2,800 were arrested in 2024 alone. A mounting body of evidence presented in 2019 at the China tribunal chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC—the same person who chaired the Uyghur tribunal—pointed to the conclusion that Falun Gong practitioners have been the victims of a state-run programme of forced organ harvesting. It is unbelievable what went on there.

It is clear now that religious persecution in China has two aspects: the careful controlling of a narrow, politicised form of religion, and the outright repression of all other expressions of that faith. We see that clearly in the systemic persecution of Chinese Christians.

First, we see the careful controlling of a narrow and highly politicised form of Christianity. The so-called Three-Self Patriotic Movement, a state-sponsored form of Chinese Christianity, is presented by the authorities as the legitimate framework for Protestant worship. This is not simply a matter of registration; it is a matter of subordination. In regulating the churches, the state claims the right to decide which churches may legally exist, which pastors may lawfully preach, which cameras are installed above the doors, what theology may be taught and what children may hear. Registration does not guarantee safety; even registered churches have still been raided. That shows that the issue is not merely whether a church is registered, but whether it remains sufficiently obedient to party priorities.

Secondly, we see the outright repression of all those who refuse to conform to that limited model. While local government officials might be able to turn a blind eye to small house church gatherings, they can crack down in a flash on congregations that risk growing too large, too noticeable or too direct in their political messaging. Unregistered churches are pressured to join the state system, and refusal can trigger raids, detention and prosecution. Even the smallest acts of worship, such as organising a bible study in a home, can be labelled as illegal gatherings, leading to detention and imprisonment.

When preaching is treated as a political crime, and when ordinary worship becomes a criminal offence, freedom of religion or belief is not merely restricted, but effectively denied. What binds all these examples together is not a single denomination or doctrine, but the party’s insistence that no independent moral, spiritual, communal or transnational authority may exist outside its control.

Why should the United Kingdom care? First, because freedom of religion or belief is universal. It is not diminished by geography, and it does not become negotiable because the offending state is economically powerful. Secondly, because the United Kingdom has long claimed a role as a defender of human rights and the international rules-based order. That claim rings hollow if, when confronted with a sophisticated system of ideological repression by a major power, we choose caution over candour. Thirdly, because the evidence before us shows that China’s repression is becoming more systematic, more legalised, more normalised and more exportable. A model in which freedom of religion or belief is hollowed out through licensing, digital surveillance, patriotic indoctrination, vague criminal law and selective prosecution is not only a domestic tragedy for China’s believers, but a profound challenge to international human rights norms.

Let me conclude with several clear points. The United Kingdom should state plainly that China’s Sinicisation programme is incompatible with genuine freedom of religion or belief. We should call for the release of prisoners of conscience who are detained on account of religion or belief, including Christian leaders, Uyghur and Hui Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, Falun Gong practitioners and others. We should condemn the persecution of Uyghurs as what it is—a genocide. We should press for transparency in administrative and criminal detention, an end to secret detention practices, proper access to lawyers and families, and due process consistent with international standards. We should support international efforts to establish a robust, independent UN mechanism capable of investigating China’s serious human rights violations, including against freedom of religion or belief. We should work with international partners on targeted sanctions against those responsible for gross abuse. We should ensure that UK trade engagement does not proceed as though forced labour, religious persecution, cultural erasure and ideological criminalisation are somehow separate from the overall character of the state with which we are dealing.

China’s believers are not asking this House to solve every problem in one debate, but they are entitled to expect a democratic legislature to tell the truth.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Given the 2021 parliamentary vote recognising the risk of genocide of the Uyghurs, does the hon. Member agree that the Government should be taking every step that they are obliged to take, under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, to prevent genocide in China?

[Ms Rimmer]

I have to say that I did not hear everything that the hon. Member said, but I think we should do whatever we can to bring the issue to a head, one way or another. We cannot just leave it as it is.

I urge the Government to make freedom of religion or belief in China a sustained priority in our diplomacy, multilateral engagement, sanctions policy and trade posture, because if freedom of conscience means anything, it must mean something when it is hardest to defend.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Rimmer]

There are few of us here today, but the speeches in this debate have been absolutely from the heart, sincere, and very detailed indeed. Members have not just come in and written out a speech; they are here because they have been living with this issue for years. They really believe in what they are saying, and we really want to see an outcome.

I was invited this morning to 1 Parliament Street and Room B with a group of children from a Manchester school; I think they were about seven or eight. They made me the bracelet that I am wearing. They taught me how to make it, but they had to do that because I could not thread the thread through the beads. Each bead represents a religion, and there are two of each colour all the way round. The booklet that comes with it tells us about religion.

I was thinking to myself about coming to this debate and what is going on in the world now. I was thinking about religion and belief and why people are fighting when they should not be. Every single religion is in this book and is represented with beads on this bracelet. It tells you what they are looking for and the peace message: treat others as you would like them to treat you. Everything comes down to the same thing, in different words. The children were pointing this out to me and saying, “We should all have a religion. Some people don’t, but they still believe in being kind to each other,” and I thought, “If only they could grow up and carry on through the world like that—keeping peace.” If only we could do that.

We have been focusing on the profoundly important issue of freedom of religion or belief. I thank my friends the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who put so much effort into the cause of freedom of religion or belief, and human rights. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) speaks out very often about it. I did not know of the interest in and passion for the cause of the Uyghurs that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) has, but certainly in his speech he was well involved in capturing that. He spoke about organ harvesting and about Xinjiang. It was wonderful to hear his commitment and his depth of understanding of what was going on. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) is just wonderful. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) has gone out of the Chamber. I am sorry that I could not hear all of his interventions to answer them. I thank them all very much, and the Minister for his responses. We will keep on at the Government. We are not going to go away.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for freedom of religion or belief in China.

Ukraine

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

May I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his excellent opening speech? It gave us all the details. I also pay tribute to the Opposition, although on this one thing, they are not the opposition. I am so proud that we have all stayed together, right the way through, and there is nothing between us. Our support is not symbolic; we do what we do because we love these people, and we love Ukraine. As I said at the beginning of all this, Ukraine is fighting our war, because if Russia gets through Ukraine, it will be in Europe, and then here.

In this solemn debate, we remember all those whose lives have been shattered by war. Yesterday marked four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It was a brutal escalation of a conflict that has brought immense suffering to millions, and that continues to threaten the foundations of international law, human dignity and, according to some, the start of world war three.

Yesterday I met Iryna Dovgan, a Ukrainian woman whose quiet courage speaks louder than any statistic. During Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea, she was detained, brutally abused and ultimately forced to flee her home in Donetsk. Only now, years later, has she finally received reparations. That support has transformed her life, enabling her to access vital medical treatment and begin rebuilding what was taken from her, yet her case is the exception, not the rule. She begged us last night to ensure that reparations get to the women and children who have been so terribly, terribly abused, and that they do not have to wait for years.

Thousands of Ukrainians have endured similar horrors, first in 2014 and again since the full-scale invasion began four years ago. Since 24 February 2022, communities across Ukraine have been scarred by violence. Homes have been destroyed; families hav been separated; and civilians have been subjected to torture, sexual violence and unlawful detention. Towns once full of life have been reduced to rubble. Children have been uprooted from their families and taken across the border—they are speaking Russian now; it is just horrendous what is going on—but people are working on that, and some children have been rescued. The human cost, not only in lives lost, but in futures stolen, is staggering.

People in my constituency—and, I am sure, in all hon. Members’ constituencies—from churches to veterans groups, are banding together to do their bit for Ukraine. For example, No Duff UK, a veteran-led organisation, is deploying volunteer teams to deliver humanitarian aid on the ground. Its work truly demonstrates the love we have for our brothers and sisters in Ukraine.

Our Government and our Parliament also demonstrate iron-clad support for Ukraine. Only yesterday, the Government announced a significant package of 300 new sanctions, aimed at cutting off the Kremlin’s revenue and weakening its capacity to wage this illegal war, including measures targeting Russia’s energy sector and key oil infrastructure. Those steps are welcome, but sanctions must be adequately enforced, co-ordinated and relentless. If they are not effective, they do not deter aggression, but embolden it, yet the UK lacks a clear strategy for ensuring that frozen Russian assets serve that purpose. I am pleased about what has been said in the debate today. Billions could remain immobilised for years, losing value, while sufferers wait without support—something that Iryna spoke about last night.

Working with our European partners, we should move decisively to seize and repurpose frozen Russian assets, including up to £30 billion held in the UK, and direct them towards humanitarian, financial and military support for Ukraine. We must ensure that UK-held funds linked to sanctioned individuals, including proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club and recovered assets from oligarch Petr Aven, are released swiftly and directed towards Ukrainian survivors. We must ensure that Ukrainian people receive justice. If we are serious about justice—and I know we are—we have to make sure that our word is kept and our actions deliver justice and peace for those people, who we are all so proud of and owe so much to. I am sure that they appreciate it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Jimmy Lai Conviction

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the hon. Member for standing up for his constituent. Obviously, I have seen the most recent reports of the circumstances that she has faced. I have not met her since then to discuss them and hear from her about them, but I think the whole House will be totally appalled by the experiences that she has had. I can assure the hon. Member that our counter-terrorism police, who cover both state threats and terrorism threats, take this immensely seriously and pursue every possible investigation, which it is why we as a Government have expanded their work in relation to state threats.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

The use of foreign lawyers by both prosecution and defence is a long-established tradition in Hong Kong, yet Jimmy Lai has been denied that right, even as judgment has been passed. This is about justice, not rigged justice. This verdict is not only devastating for one British citizen and his family; it represents a brutal attack on free speech and the rule of law in Hong Kong. It confirms that the national security law is being used to silence critics, to destroy independent media, and to dismantle the freedoms that were promised to the people of Hong Kong. According to the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation,

“Jimmy Lai is guilty only of his unwavering belief in freedom for the people of Hong Kong. Contrary to Beijing’s intentions, the verdict today highlights Jimmy Lai’s courage and integrity and sends a clear message around the world that Hong Kong’s once proud judicial system is severely tarnished and under Beijing’s authoritarian control.”

The Foreign Secretary, and many Ministers whom she has quoted today, have raised the case of Mr Lai and spoken to people including our international colleagues, and we must continue to do so, but it is evident that that is no longer sufficient. The Prime Minister must raise the case with the Chinese regime at the highest possible level. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen, and I ask our Prime Minister to consider carefully what action we will now take to protect this citizen and many, many more. After all, the British Government’s first duty is to protect their citizens at home and abroad.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s championing of Jimmy Lai. She is right: this is about some of the most basic freedoms of all. It is about freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly—freedom to gather—and also the fundamental freedoms in relation to journalism that are so important and have been such an important part of Hong Kong’s identity and history for so long. They were embodied in the declaration to recognise that uniqueness about Hong Kong, which is why we will continue to maintain them. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister has already raised this directly with his counterparts, as have many other Ministers, and we will continue to do so.

Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for securing this important debate, and for his excellent introduction to it.

There is one particularly alarming case that we cannot overlook in this debate: that of Roman Abramovich. His activities epitomise how opaque offshore structures undermine UK financial integrity and global trust. In a letter to the Chancellor dated 10 September, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and I, as co-chairs of the APPG on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West, as chair of the APPG on anti-corruption and responsible tax, warned that Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich may owe HMRC up to £1 billion on profits from his multimillion-pound hedge fund investments. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that these hedge funds, although registered offshore, were being run from the UK. Under UK law, they should have been paying UK taxes. This investigation revealed that Abramovich benefited from a fraudulent scheme designed to evade €14 million in VAT due in Cyprus on his fleet of superyachts. Cypriot tax authorities have since filed criminal charges to recover more than €25 million in tax.

As our letter pointed out, HMRC has yet to respond to these findings. Even when journalists offered to brief HMRC’s permanent secretary, their offer went unanswered. That silence has raised serious concerns about the Government’s willingness to act decisively against those who use offshore networks and shield vast sums from scrutiny. The Government’s reply, sent in October, insists that

“everyone should pay the tax that is legally due”,

and highlighted new enforcement measures, including 5,500 extra compliance staff and the creation of a complex cross tax and offshore team. Those steps are welcome, but they do not answer our central question: why is there still no visible enforcement action in this case?

This is not just about one oligarch; it is about ensuring that our own financial system and the jurisdictions linked to it cannot be used to hide wealth, evade tax or escape sanctions. That £1 billion would build the 500 schools so badly needed in our poorest areas.

Taiwan: International Status

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on securing the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) on making her maiden speech. It is wonderful to have two MPs from Scotland bringing so much knowledge and understanding of international issues to the House. It really is enriching, and I have been in this place for 10 years.

All the contributions today have been full of different aspects—economic, public health, dictatorship, the Communist party and filthy politics—but I will stick to some basics. I have been to Taiwan a number of times, and I think I am still getting over my last trip, which was to the conference that has been mentioned. I do not know how many hours of travelling we did, but it really knocked me out for six and we did not have many hours between the business over there. If anyone thinks that Members going on trips to Taiwan are on holiday, they are wrong.

Taiwan is a wonderful place. I will not go on too much about it, but it must be way up there in the rankings for demonstrating actual democracy. Believe me, this Parliament has much to learn from Taiwan about how to conduct its business. On my first visit to Taiwan, I thought I was going to the third world, but I came back to somewhere that resembled the third world by comparison with Taiwan.

Only last month, the People’s Republic of China conducted one of its largest ever military drills off the coast of Taiwan, in an attempt to intimidate it. The drill involved 34 naval vessels and at least 125 aircraft. The tactic of intimidation is part of today’s debate, and it shows what China is about. China is attempting to intimidate Taiwan and isolate it by insisting that the One China principle means that Taiwan can play no role in international bodies. Nothing in UN resolution 2758 states that Taiwan cannot be part of international organisations, and the exclusion of Taiwan comes with dangerous consequences for the world. A number of Members have explicitly stated that today, so I do not need to repeat what they have said. The opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) was magnificent; he covered every aspect of this matter, and I congratulate him on doing so.

During the covid-19 pandemic, Taiwan deployed one of the world’s most effective strategies against the disease, despite its close proximity to China. However, Taiwan was excluded from the World Health Organisation, and it remains excluded today. It is worth mentioning the forced organ harvesting system. Who determined that China has an ethical organ transplant system? China itself did, yet the WHO still admitted it. According to the WHO, China operates an ethical organ harvesting system.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point. Practitioners of Falun Gong talk about arrests, incarceration and illegal organ harvesting from people who are still alive, and about the high levels of state-based attacks and murders. It is quite staggering that China exports more organs than any other country in the world, and I wonder where it gets them from.

[Ms Rimmer]

I do not want to go on too much about organ harvesting, because it gives me sleepless nights. China takes organs from 28-year-olds because it gets more for them, as there are better chances of succeeding if the organs are taken fresh from people who are still alive. People can order a kidney and so on, because there is a database of the people going to “re-education schools”. China says to the world, “Don’t worry; we can get what you need. You can have it in days.” How many people have been prosecuted? We know there has been one prosecution in the UK, but how many people have come back from China having received an organ? Is the law being enforced?

The exclusion of Taiwan from international bodies meant that it could not share with the world its successful methods of dealing with covid when we needed them the most. The World Health Organisation is only one example of an international body from which Taiwan has been excluded. China has consistently blocked attempts by Taiwan to join the UN, including in 2009, which means that over 23 million people in one of the finest democracies in the world have been blocked from being heard at the United Nations. In the event of a conflict breaking out across the Taiwan strait, only one side would be able to put forward their case at the United Nations. That is not how the United Nations was intended to operate. Why is it like that? I shivered when Putin’s Russia was allowed to use its veto at the United Nations. People thought I was mad, but we are seeing the consequences now.

There are troubling reports that former Taiwanese President Tsai was blocked from visiting this place to address MPs and peers last month. President Tsai has had successful visits to Canada, Brussels and Czechia, yet apparently she was not allowed here. That is despite Taiwan being an important strategic partner for the United Kingdom in the Indo-Pacific. Sadly, it seems as though China’s intimidation campaign continues to work.

One of the best ways to push back against the People’s Republic of China’s intimidation campaign is to elevate the status of the Taiwanese Representative Office here in London, in a similar way to the action taken in the United States and Lithuania. Right now, the Taiwanese Representative Office is not afforded the protection it clearly needs. It cannot even get a bank account. Elevating Taiwan’s diplomatic status would send a clear message that the British Government do not accept an enforced One China principle, and instead consider both Taiwan and China to be individual partners.

The People’s Republic of China was founded 75 years ago, and Taiwan has never been part of it. Taiwan is a thriving and successful democracy that shares our values. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, what is happening in Taiwan is just part of China’s plan. Look at what is happening in Hong Kong. Instead of waiting 50 years to review everything, China smashed it and moved on to the next one: Taiwan. The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point today.

It is time to show our strength by throwing off the shackles of intimidation and giving Taiwan diplomatic status. If the British Government lead with our allies, other nations will follow suit. Taiwan is a self-governing democracy that has succeeded despite not being allowed into the UN and other international organisations. It is a shining light of democracy in an uncertain region, and this world is desperately short of such shining lights of true democracy in operation. The world is in desperate need.

I urge Members to vote for the motion today, to send a clear message that this House believes Taiwan has every right to be part of international organisations in its own right. That is what resolution 2758 was about.

Some people would have me be ashamed of my religion, but I am not. I am a Roman Catholic, but not holier than thou. A shudder went through me when, last year or the year before—time seems to go very quickly now—Roman Catholics in China were required to register as Roman Catholics, and our Pope accepted it. What did Hitler do? This is how he started. I thought, “Dear Lord, this sleeping tiger has not half woken up, and it is going to cause harm.” It is about time that other nations, not just ours, got their act together. It is about time that so-called democratic countries sorted this out.

China is to be feared more than Russia. It is part of the evil axis that would take over this world if we do not all stand up for democracy and for people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

China: Human Rights and Sanctions

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I do not recognise what was suggested in relation to Taiwan.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that Jimmy Lai’s case is a priority for the Government and will remain so. We continue to press for consular access to Jimmy Lai and for his release. Diplomats from our consulate general in Hong Kong attended his court proceedings on a regular basis, to keep abreast of what is taking place.

On Taiwan, our position remains the same. In all our engagements with the Chinese Government, we will continue to challenge them robustly on all these issues. He suggests that the last Government put trade first. We will not be putting trade first, but there are clearly areas where we can and should co-operate with China, as well as areas where we will challenge China, as we must.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I am honoured to have met Sebastien Lai and his legal team, who are fighting for the release of his father, Jimmy Lai. Jimmy is 76 and a diabetic, and there are serious concerns about his ill health in solitary confinement. Jimmy is a man of faith. He is a Roman Catholic who is being denied Holy Communion—how very cruel that is at his stage of life and in his condition. His crime is standing up for freedom and democracy. Sebastien has been doing all he can, but he needs assistance and respectfully requests that senior figures in Government get his father, a British citizen, released. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to meeting Jimmy Lai’s family and will he ask the Chancellor to do the same, ahead of her visit to China next year?

[Mr Lammy]

Of course I will commit to meeting Sebastien and his family. When I raised the issue of Jimmy Lai, I pointed to his age and the fact that it would be an abomination if he died in prison. I assure my hon. Friend that that issue was raised.

Ukraine

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

For more than two years Ukrainians have been fighting this war on behalf of us all. The brave Ukrainians are fighting for our shared values. They are fighting for our democracy, for our freedom, and indeed for Europe’s freedom. Many of those brave Ukrainians have made the ultimate sacrifice. Women and children have paid with unspeakable suffering and death. We are not dying each day to defend Europe from Russia. Our job, and the job of other European and NATO countries, has been to support Ukraine. That has been through military aid, sanctions, and cracking down on dirty money, yet too often we are playing catch-up, and delays in vital support getting to Ukraine have cost them dearly.

The delay in American support for months has given Putin a new-found optimism, which could prove catastrophic to our Ukrainian allies. Who knows what will happen in the US presidential election? Our country and Europe need to be ready. Our support for Ukraine needs to step up. Any sign of weakness or hesitancy inspires Putin. The result of this war will have a greater impact on Europe than it will on America. It is ultimately our war—Europe’s war—and we need to make sure that Ukraine wins.

When armaments are supplied, too often restrictions are placed on them. Limiting the use of long-range missiles is asking Ukrainians to defend their country with one arm tied behind their back. Russia has gone all in to win, and Ukraine being able to fire missiles slightly further will not change Russia’s already barbaric behaviour. The massacre of Ukrainians in Bucha shows how the Russians will behave if they win. Ukrainians know that they are fighting for their survival.

There is $300 billion of Russian central bank funds sitting in the Euroclear exchange, and our Government should be pressuring the EU to use it to support Ukraine. Money seized here should also be used to support Ukraine. China has given Putin a blank cheque; it is supplying him to win. It is also time for talks on Ukraine joining NATO and the EU to begin, and to be hastened. That is what they are fighting for—to be part of the free and democratic world, and ideals that many have fought and died for. Denying them that in the hope of appeasing a ruthless dictator is pointless. History teaches us that trying to appease a bully does not work.

Ukraine is backed by the free and democratic world. Putin is backed by dictators and despots. If Putin wins, every authoritarian regime across the world will be emboldened. Whether we like it or not, there is a war in Europe. There will be a winner and a loser. It is essential that Ukraine wins this war, and we must ensure that it gets what it needs. Ukraine must win, and Europe and NATO must do everything in their power. Ukraine must win, for if not I really fear that Europe and NATO may not survive in the future.

Trial of Jimmy Lai

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and much of the work that our diplomatic teams across the world do is in countries where the rule of law is not necessarily adhered to, but where there are abuses, human rights violations and so on. We continue to highlight and challenge those, working alongside international partners to persuade those leaderships to change their ways, and to understand both the merits of a well-delivered legal system and the value that adds to the credibility of the political leadership of their nations. It is something we do week in, week out. Sadly, there are many countries across the world where these challenges continue, but it is right at the heart of the diplomatic service’s work.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

The use of international lawyers has been a long-standing practice in Hong Kong, and we have failed Mr Lai. Will the Minister advise exactly what steps will be taken, and when, to secure or attempt to secure international legal representation of the British citizen Mr Lai?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

As I set out in answer to an earlier question, Jimmy Lai obviously wanted to have his own choice of legal representation. He has a fantastic team of lawyers here in the UK supporting him. The challenge for those representing him at the trial is one that we continue to highlight, as I set out earlier. The frustration in the way this system works means that he does not have the international lawyer of his choosing with him. However, we will continue to highlight those failings and, as so many colleagues have highlighted, what we consider the right use of the legal system and such independent representation should be.

Beneficial Ownership Registers: Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) for securing the debate.

Our country, with its Crown dependencies and overseas territories, is responsible for 35% of global tax loss. The UK tax gap is estimated by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to be worth £36 billion. Those billions of pounds could be spent helping our NHS or fixing our schools’ leaking roofs, but sadly, they are instead propping up Putin and his cronies as they try to destroy Ukraine. The past year has put a spotlight on dirty money laundered and hidden here, yet that problem has been around for years. We must act now to ensure that we are not indirectly responsible for horrors continuing to occur by failing to tackle dirty money, be it in London, the British Virgin Islands or one of our other territories. We have a duty to the people of Ukraine to do our bit.

We have heard many times from the Dispatch Box about how much support we are rightly giving to Ukraine, but the Government must press our Crown dependencies and overseas territories, which are the Russians’ laundromat of choice, to do the same. Transparency International has identified 237 cases of corruption enabled by companies based in the overseas territories. Those cases are worth an astonishing £250 billion, which was diverted via rigged procurement, bribery, embezzlement and the unlawful acquisition of state assets. All those cases passed through companies registered in our overseas territories. The presidential family of the Republic of Congo have enriched themselves to the sum of at least £500 million by completing dodgy oil deals through companies based in Anguilla, all while the Congo sits in billions of pounds of debt.

Of all the cases, 92% of those were registered in the British Virgin Islands. The scale of the financial damage caused by those companies is £196 billion, which is greater than the UK’s foreign aid budget over the past 20 years. We in this House often talk about our responsibility to the world and to mankind, and about our duty to help the world’s poorest—that is why we believe in foreign aid—yet monumental sums are being robbed from countries around the world by despots and dictators and then stored in our territories. Our duty to the world requires us to do more to crack down on it. Quite frankly, every time there is a series of leaks—from the Panama papers and the Paradise Papers to the “Cyprus Confidential” dossier—it is an embarrassment to our country, and it is not going away.

As has been set out, one of the most effective ways to crack down on the problem is with public registers of who owns the companies in our overseas territories and Crown dependencies. There has been enough talk about cracking down on tax avoidance for decades; it is now time for realistic and pragmatic action for good. Fraud, tax and sanction avoidance, and other economic crime can be cracked down on only if it is possible to follow the money. The Government cannot expect law enforcement to crack down on tax avoidance if it is not given the tools it needs to do it. We can do it and we have said we will do it, so we should get on and do it!

Public registers can also help to restore public faith in the tax system by helping to expose the high levels of aggressive tax avoidance and evasion that we know take place. In the long term, public registers can contribute to creating a fairer and less lopsided tax system. That allows the Government of the day to collect tax effectively, and fairly invest in our public services and infrastructure. Public registers of beneficial ownership are a sensible transparency measure, with broad cross-party support. The Government have repeatedly expressed their support for establishing public registers, but we are still waiting for them to be set up. They were supposed to be set up by the end of 2023. This situation cannot go on. The Foreign Secretary needs to get this over the line. We need to be able to identify who the true owner of offshore wealth is. We need to be able to uphold the law and make sure that tax is paid. We need to remove the veil of secrecy that, sadly, exists in too many of our territories and dependencies.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, but tragically the reason is that Hamas have often sought to embed themselves among civilian infrastructure, and as long as that is the case, tragedy will ensue. The solution is a de-escalation, the defeat of Hamas and, in the first instance, a humanitarian pause to improve humanitarian access.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Allegations of breaches of international humanitarian law should always be treated with the utmost seriousness. Assessing specific allegations is the proper task of lawyers in competent international courts. Does the Minister recognise, with Labour, that the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction must address the conduct of all parties in Gaza?

[Leo Docherty]

We have long been on record as calling for all parties to abide by international humanitarian law.