UK-US Bilateral Relationship

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I serve in the British-American Parliamentary Group. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing this important debate.

As President George H. W. Bush once said,

“America has no truer friend than Great Britain.”

That sentiment has been repeated time and again but, sadly, we now have a Government seemingly intent on weakening that vital bond. We have a Foreign Secretary who, without hesitation, labelled the leader of the free world a

“racist and KKK/neo-Nazi sympathiser”;

a Health Secretary who referred to him as an “odious…little man”; and, perhaps most concerning of all, a Prime Minister who accused the leader of the free world of an “attack on democracy”—a far cry from leadership figures such as Churchill, Thatcher and even Blair, who understood the value of forging strong and meaningful relations with our closest ally.

Unfortunately, it is not just the Government’s words of woke condemnation that are cause for concern, but their actions. The Trump Administration have unequivocally expressed their concerns about the Foreign Secretary’s reckless proposal to cede sovereignty over the strategically vital Chagos islands to Mauritius. Yet the Foreign Secretary pressed ahead, attempting to finalise the deal before President Trump officially took office. That pattern of misguided priorities and dangerous diplomacy cannot be ignored. Do the Government believe that the special relationship no longer matters?

Prime Minister after Prime Minister and President after President have been steadfast in their commitment to that enduring relationship. Why? Because both sides recognise that our trade is worth more than £300 billion, with 1.2 million Americans working in British companies and 1.5 million British citizens working for American firms. The UK imports around £58 billion in goods from the US and exports £60.4 billion in return. Our Chancellor has stated that she is focused on growth, so surely consolidating and strengthening those economic ties must be a top priority? The previous Government were in talks with President Trump about a post-Brexit deal that would have seen trade increase by potentially

“three to four, five times”.

It is deeply concerning that some Members on the Government Benches and all those on the Liberal Democrat Benches seem intent on undermining the biggest democratic decision this country has ever made: our decision to leave the European Union. Rejoining the EU customs union would not only be undemocratic, but would damage our special relationship with American businesses and prevent us from fostering our own independent trade deals.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway recognised, President Trump is an Anglophile. He has property in Scotland and a deep sentimental connection to British culture and the royal family. It would be regrettable to see that bond undermined by a Government determined to placate the cultural left at every opportunity. It is therefore essential that the Government invite President Trump over for a state visit at the earliest opportunity. That would send a powerful message to the world that the special relationship between our two great nations is as strong as ever.

The Government must stop playing politics with our national interest. The United States is and always will be our greatest ally. We share a history, a culture and, most importantly, a vision for how the world should be. The Government must act now to secure our future and preserve the special relationship for generations to come.

Pakistan: Freedom of Religion

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I would love to say that such interventions are having an impact, but unfortunately I do not see much evidence of it. Our responses have to be evidentially based. Amnesty International is involved, and present, in Pakistan. Is it highlighting these things in Pakistan? Only Amnesty can answer that. We do not see much evidence of it.

My concern is that the legislative and societal frameworks in Pakistan have created an environment where intolerance thrives. The blasphemy laws, which I ask the Minister to respond to directly, were introduced during General Zia ul-Haq’s regime. They are among the harshest in the world, and have been frequently weaponised against religious minorities. I will give some examples of that in the debate.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the issue goes beyond religious freedom into other equality matters such as women’s rights and LGBT rights, which go hand in hand?

[Jim Shannon]

I will mention that later; it is a salient point, because whenever there is persecution based on people’s religious beliefs, there are human rights issues alongside it. The two things are not separate; they are married. If human rights are taken away, so are religious rights. The hon. Gentleman is right to put that on the record.

Since the 1980s, many thousands of cases have been reported, disproportionately affecting Christians, Hindus and Ahmadis. The blasphemy laws are used not only to silence dissent but as tools for personal vendettas and mob incitement. When I was in Pakistan in 2023, I met some of those who had been charged under the blasphemy laws. It was found that the allegations were vindictive and malicious: there was no evidential basis for them whatever. Such accusations have led to extrajudicial killings, violent attacks and mass displacements.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) referred to the plight of young Christian and Hindu girls who are abducted, forcibly converted to Islam and married to their captors. That is not merely a violation of their religious freedom but an affront to their dignity and human rights. In Sindh province alone, the practice has become alarmingly common, with inadequate legal protections allowing perpetrators to evade justice. There is something wrong with a society that can let a 14 or 12-year-old, or anyone who is still under the care of their parents, be taken away, abducted and married against their will. These are people of such innocence. It really disturbs me, and unfortunately we have reports that it is happening regularly in Pakistan.

Dignity First’s 2024 report highlighted more than 70 violent incidents targeting Christians, ranging from mob violence to forced conversions and abductions. In Jaranwala in Punjab, Christian homes and businesses were attacked in what appeared to be a premeditated assault on their religious identity. They were attacked and brutalised because they were Christians. Tragically, the authorities have often failed to bring perpetrators to justice. Christians have been subjected to accusations of blasphemy that can result in torture or death at the hands of violent mobs. The international community must demand that Pakistan take concrete steps to end the violence against Christians and provide legal protection for all religious minorities. This House believes in freedom for religious minorities, wherever they are in the world. We therefore ask Pakistan to conform to that, and protect religious minorities. I commend the organisation Alliance Defending Freedom International, which recently facilitated the rescue of Saima Bibi and Reeha Saleem, two brave young women forced into such marriages. Their release was a triumph, but countless others remain trapped in similar situations. Their cries for help go unanswered. We ask the Minister to do something about that.

I want to take up the plight of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan. We were fortunate that the last time we were with them we were able to meet some of the imams and people at high levels of the Muslim faith. According to the society in Pakistan, the Ahmadiyyas are a sect of Muslimism, but they do not conform to everyone else. Therefore, according to Pakistan law, they are heretics, if that is the right word to use, and outside the mainstream. There is something wrong with religious liberty if we cannot accept that people have the right to choose the god they wish to worship. That right should be protected. Declared non-Muslims by the state in 1974, Ahmadis face systematic discrimination, enshrined in law. There is no freedom there. Under ordinance XX, their religious practices, such as calling their places of worship “mosques” or referring to their faith as “Islam”, are criminalised.

The desecration of Ahmadi mosques and graves has become almost routine. The last time we were there, we saw pictures of churches, mosques and gravestones that had been destroyed, with the graves desecrated. Since 2021, more than 40 mosques and 421 graves have been destroyed or defaced. Violent hate speech against Ahmadis is openly promoted, with preachers inciting mobs to commit acts of violence. It is not just a matter of verbally objecting; they take it further. Mob violence ensues and many people are hurt.

Just two and half months ago, the September 2024 commemoration of anti-Ahmadi laws was particularly chilling, as it emboldened extremists and led to further attacks on that very vulnerable community. In the Parachinar Kurram district, Shi’a Muslims—another sect—face relentless attacks from extremist groups, including the Taliban and ISIS-affiliated organisations. Just this year, Parachinar was cut off from the rest of Pakistan due to a blockade, resulting in severe shortages of medical supplies, food and fuel. Eleven lives were lost because critically ill patients could not access essential care.

To pivot slightly, we also have an obligation to address the role of the Jamaat-e-Islami group in Pakistan. Not only did it play a significant role in the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war, but it continues to shape religious and political landscapes across the region. Its student wing is called Islami Chhatra Shibir. The organisation has been involved in violent protests, including recent clashes in Bangladesh over Government policies. Founded by Syed Abul Ala Maududi, Jamaat-e-Islami promotes the idea of establishing an Islamic state, and has been linked to extremist activities through connections with groups such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The legacy of Jamaat-e-Islami’s involvement in atrocities during the liberation of Bangladesh still casts a shadow over its actions today, both in Pakistan and Bangladesh. We want to see peace, stability and the democratic process working well, but there are those who work against that. In addition to the suffering of religious minorities in Pakistan, we cannot ignore the ongoing targeted violence against Shi’a Muslims in regions such as Parachinar. Located in Pakistan’s volatile tribal belt, it has been the site of relentless sectarian violence, including a recent attack that left 44 Shi’a Muslims dead at the hands of extremist Sunni militias and the Taliban. Those acts of violence are not isolated, but part of a broader pattern of persecution against the Shi’a community.

In August 2024, a conflict over land disputes escalated into deadly sectarian violence, leaving 46 people dead and 200 injured. Such violence is not isolated, but part of a broader pattern of targeted attacks on Shi’a Muslims, perpetuating cycles of hatred and division. The situation is urgent. These attacks are an affront not only to basic human rights but to the principles of religious tolerance and co-existence.

Let me give an example. Whenever I was in Pakistan, we went to the Church of Pakistan—equivalent to the Church of England—and the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), who is no longer here, went to the Roman Catholic cathedral. Both places were surrounded by guards, inside and out, and there were metal gates on the entrance. We had a police guard, along with members of the army, the whole time we were there. Simply being a Christian, or having any different religious persuasion, requires extra security in that area. I remember seeing the parishioners as they left the church to make their way home. When they walked out of the gates, nobody was there to guard them, while obviously we were being guarded, and I was very conscious of that.