Sri Lanka

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elliot Colburn]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I hope that the UK sees that the new resolution passed by the UN Human Rights Council about collecting evidence should indeed include the specific soldiers who committed those atrocities as well.

The past atrocities that occurred in Sri Lanka are only one of the reasons we are having this debate. The second part of the motion is about the current economic and political instability there. The country is suffering its worst economic crisis since gaining independence in 1948. It defaulted on $51 billion of external debt in mid-April and is in talks with the International Monetary Fund for a $2.9 billion bailout.

Due to a shortage of hard currency to pay for imports, there have been shortages of basic necessities, including medicines, cooking gas, fuel and food, so 3.4 million people are now in need of urgent humanitarian help on the island. UN agencies working in Sri Lanka announced yesterday that they had raised $79 million to feed those in need, but the increasing number of those in need means that another estimated $70 million is needed.

In July, the new President imposed a state of emergency after his predecessor fled the country and resigned from his post following massive anti-Government protests about the Government’s mishandling of the economy, which threw the country into further instability. The FCDO updated its travel advice over the summer to advise against all but essential travel to the island, due to the political and economic instability. The causes of Sri Lanka’s financial crisis are multifaceted.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that military spending in Sri Lanka is higher now than it was at the height of the civil war? Surely that expenditure is contributing to the debt crisis that the country is facing.

[Elliot Colburn]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention; she has been a doughty champion in this place for the Tamil population for many years and I thank her for lending her expertise to this debate. I hope to come on to that point later.

The failure to include Tamils in economic activity, a large defence budget that supports a disproportionately large military—as my right hon. Friend mentioned—corruption and, of course, poor fiscal policies have led Sri Lanka’s economy to the brink of bankruptcy. For Sri Lanka to be rescued, it needs to reduce its military spending, which stands at $1.86 billion per annum. That makes it one of the largest militaries in the world and costs more than its health and education budgets combined.

The militarisation of the country is also firmly linked to the deteriorating human rights situation on the island. The Prevention of Terrorism Act has been used to target predominately Muslim and Tamil communities, resulting in arbitrary detention, sexual torture and enforced disappearances. In fact, Sri Lanka has the second highest number of UN-registered enforced disappearances in the world, most of whom are Tamils.

Furthermore, the Sri Lankan military is engaged in commercial activities in the north-east, including tourism, farming and fishing, which stifles the local economy and prevents Tamils from contributing to economic activity in any meaningful way. That needs to be stopped to allow for regional economic regeneration. Sri Lanka also needs to conduct a strategic defence and security review, similar to the one that the UK completed in 2021, to ensure that its military size reflects its security requirements.

All of Sri Lanka’s projections for emerging out of the economic crisis are predicated on the country retaining its generalised scheme of preferences and trade concession. That annual trade concession is worth more than $500 million and has boosted Sri Lanka’s exports to EU member states over the years. However, Sri Lanka has failed to meet the key labour and human rights requirements for receiving that preferential treatment, and the EU recently issued a warning that it is set to lose its concession if it continues to ignore its obligations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this debate and for his powerful opening speech, and it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who also contributed effectively and powerfully to this debate. I thank, too, the Backbench Business Committee for making the debate possible.

I would like to declare an interest: I am vice-chair of the all-party group on Tamils. Members of the British Tamil community have supported me in many ways, including in assistance with fundraising and making it possible for me to visit the UN in Geneva to make the case for justice for Tamils in Sri Lanka.

Many thousands of Tamils died in the closing months of the terrible civil war, and many are still unaccounted for. The descriptions we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington were truly harrowing. No matter how often one is told about these appalling episodes of gender-based violence and other sorts of violence, it is still deeply disturbing to hear about them happening in the modern era in a Commonwealth country.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I am deeply concerned about the lack of progress on women’s rights in Sri Lanka: girls can still be married from as young as 12 and women remain second-class citizens, which should not be the case in the modern world. Does the right hon. Lady agree that women need further support in Sri Lanka and this must be our focal point?

[Theresa Villiers]

I do agree. It is a development priority for the UK Government to support the empowerment of women and girls around the world. I hope that Ministers will raise these matters with their counterparts in Sri Lanka.

Families of the disappeared have been protesting for more than 2,000 days, demanding to know what happened to their missing loved ones. The establishment of the Office on Missing Persons looked like such a positive step forward—tangible progress following UNHRC resolutions—but the depressing reality is the OMP has not been able to trace a single person on its list of over 6,000 cases, nor has it clarified the fate of the disappeared in any meaningful way. Such was the conclusion of UN Human Rights commissioner Bachelet. She is also clear that the human rights situation in Sri Lanka is deteriorating. It is not just Tamils who suffer as a result; Muslims have also been targeted, as have Sinhala people who have joined some of the widespread protests about economic failure.

So let no one think that the great questions we are debating today here in the mother of Parliaments are only about legacy, important though they are. The oppressive security apparatus of the Sri Lankan state is still being used to exert control over the country’s citizens. People are still arrested and detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, despite the promise made by the Sri Lankan Government in resolution 30/1 seven years ago to repeal it. The military remains entrenched in economic activities across the north and east; it retains control of swathes of land confiscated from Tamils, and senior military figures still hold prominent positions in Government, some of them appointed only in recent years. It is, frankly, astonishing that spending on the armed forces is greater today than at the height of the conflict, outstripping the combined total of the health and education budgets. This must have contributed to the debt crisis in Sri Lanka. In short, the Rajapaksa regime wrecked the economy and, as yet, there seems little visible progress under its successor. So, as Members have already acknowledged, there is a deep crisis in both economic and human rights terms.

In his response to the debate, I hope the Minister will commit the Government to the following actions: first, that they will push strongly in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva for the Sri Lankan Government to meet the obligations that they undertook in resolution 30/1, and which the Human Rights Council reiterated recently in resolution 51/1. The UK Government have a good record of being the penholder in that process and making a real difference, but they must keep up the pressure in the light of a deteriorating situation. Secondly, in the light of continued failure to bring war criminals to justice, progress must be made on an international mechanism to deliver accountability at last. This issue cannot wait any longer.

Thirdly, the Government must impose sanctions on those figures credibly implicated in war crimes and human rights abuses, as has been the case in countries such as the United States. Fourthly, they must find a way to ensure that any bailout from international institutions be accompanied by rigorous efforts to root out cronyism and corruption in Sri Lanka, and cut the irrationally large military spending budget. Finally, the UK Government must advocate for a new constitutional settlement in Sri Lanka that delivers power sharing and political equality, to meet the legitimate aspirations of the Tamil people to have a real say in how they are governed.

Sri Lanka has a tragic past, as shown by the film “Continuing Cycles of Violence and Genocide in Sri Lanka”. The film was created by members of the British Tamil community and screened here in Parliament at an event I hosted for the British Tamils Forum in July. It is truly shocking to see the recurrent pattern of violence and injustice directed towards Tamils over many decades. However, there are grounds for hope. Recent protests saw people from diverse backgrounds, faiths and ethnicities coming together to demand change and a better future for all Sri Lankans. Let us all in this House and in this Government play our part in helping them reach that historic goal.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am pleased to respond to this debate and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for leading it. I also thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for securing it. We have heard a number of moving contributions, reflecting the deep humanitarian and economic crisis afflicting Sri Lanka, and I am grateful for those contributions. We heard from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), the hon. Members for Richmond Park, for Ealing North (James Murray), for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and the Opposition spokespersons, the hon. Members for Dundee West (Chris Law) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West). I should say that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) is now the lead Minister on our relations with Sri Lanka, but I am pleased to respond to this debate on her behalf, and I will briefly reflect on the activities of Lord Ahmad, who, until now, has held that brief.

The UK and Sri Lanka have had a long shared history. Many UK citizens and parliamentarians have close ties with that country; we have heard Members speak movingly of their experiences in Sri Lanka. The relationship really does matter to the UK, and it has been extremely difficult for us all to witness Sri Lanka’s recent economic decline. It is an economic crisis made worse by dreadful and long-term mismanagement, the economic fallout from the terrible 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, the covid pandemic and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

As for what the British Government is doing about this, we believe that a stable and inclusive political settlement is an essential foundation for economic recovery and growth in the long term in Sri Lanka. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon made that point to Sri Lankan President Wickremesinghe in July and to Sri Lankan Prime Minister Gunawardena in August, urging progress both on human rights and accountability, and on economic reform.

The UK is providing economic support through a number of institutions, including the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations, the Asian Development Bank and the Paris Club. As has been mentioned, we welcome the initial September staff-level agreement with the IMF for a four-year support programme of some $3 billion. Although this agreement represents a positive milestone for Sri Lanka, continued negotiations are needed to achieve final programme approval and a route to restore macroeconomic stability and debt sustainability.

Some hon. Members have proposed conditionalities on IMF assistance. Within its governance structure, the IMF only has the ability to impose conditionality linked to economic policy, not political or human rights-linked conditionality. But of course we want human rights progress to advance in tandem with economic progress, and we will use other mechanisms to hold the Sri Lankans to account and progress human rights in that regard.

[Theresa Villiers]

May I emphasise that, if these international bodies are allowed to impose conditions in relation to economic matters, they should be imposing conditions in relation to military spending, cronyism and corruption? Those are reasonable asks of any bail-out.

[Leo Docherty]

I note my right hon. Friend’s comments, but we seek to interlink conditionality with our approach in multilateral forums with regard to human rights. Essentially, we are using the UN to push forward human rights.

In addition to our economic support through institutions, the UK Government have also provided humanitarian assistance. We announced £3 million of humanitarian support in September. This will be delivered through the Red Cross and the United Nations partners as part of our ongoing humanitarian response. It is, of course, important that humanitarian assistance reaches those who need it most, wherever they are in the country, and that is something that we want to see. The UK is also the largest donor to the United Nations central emergency response fund, contributing more than £1.7 billion since its inception in 2006. The fund has already provided $5 million to Sri Lanka.

I wish to address the question raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) about conditionality with regard to trade discussions. On the generalised scheme of trade preferences, the EU scheme to which he referred will be replaced by our new developing countries trading scheme early next year. Under this new scheme of preferences, the UK will retain the power to suspend a country on the grounds of human rights violations. I take his point and am pleased to confirm that, under our new arrangements, we will have that capacity in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks, her question and her concern. That matter was raised specifically by the Prime Minister at Cabinet this morning. He spoke to the Egyptian authorities and I have no doubt that the arguments that she put were strenuously emphasised by the Prime Minister in those discussions.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Iran has one of the worst human rights records in the world, and I am sure that is one reason for the extensive protests. Will the Government ensure that if the joint comprehensive plan of action is revived or replaced, it will place strong obligations on Iran to repair its appalling and shocking human rights record?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend raises a most important subject. What is going on in Iran is of immense concern to the Government. I will ensure that her comments are carefully recorded for the Foreign Secretary.

Mahsa Amini

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on what representations he has made to the Iranian authorities about ongoing protests regarding the death of Mahsa Amini.

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

The death of Mahsa Amini in Iran was a shocking reminder of the repression faced by women in Iran. The protests across the country that have followed show us that the Iranian people are not satisfied with the path that their Government have taken.

I commend the bravery of ordinary Iranians seeking to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression in the face of appalling police violence. We condemn the Iranian authorities’ crackdown on protesters, journalists and internet freedom: the use of violence in response to the expression of fundamental rights by women or any other members of Iranian society is wholly unjustifiable.

Yesterday, on 10 October, we announced sanctions on senior security and political figures in Iran and the so-called morality police. We have sanctioned the morality police in their entirety, as well as their chief, Mohammed Rostami Cheshmeh Gachi, and the head of the Tehran division, Haj Ahmed Mirzaei. For decades, the morality police have used the threat of detention and violence to control what Iranian women wear and how they behave in public.

The UK is also imposing sanctions on five leading political and security officials in Iran for committing serious human rights violations in suppressing fuel protests in Iran in 2019. The UK maintains sanctions designations against a further 78 individuals and one entity under our Iran human rights sanctions regime. In all, there are more than 200 sanctions designations in place against Iran, including in relation to human rights, nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

[Theresa Villiers]

These protests show that there are thousands of women in Iran who are not prepared to put up with violent human rights abuses. Will the UK Government stand with those brave women as they call for justice, for freedom and for democracy? Will Ministers meet opposition groups? Will they ban the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? Will they rule out sanctions relief under the joint comprehensive plan of action process?

[Gillian Keegan]

As the Foreign Secretary has said, the protests send a clear message that Iranian people are not satisfied with the path that their Government have taken; Iranian leaders must now listen. Of course, we stand by those people: the use of violence in response to the expression of fundamental rights by women or any other members of Iranian society is wholly unjustifiable. We continue to keep everything under review, and the UK has called for a full and transparent investigation into the shocking death of Mahsa Amini.

Oral Answers to Questions

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Theresa Villiers; come on.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

11. What recent steps she has taken to support a negotiated settlement to reunite Cyprus.

[The Minister for Europe (Graham Stuart)]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend; she is a great champion for the reunification of Cyprus. We are determined to find a negotiated settlement for the island, which is why I met Cypriot Foreign Minister Kasoulides in my first week in office to set out the UK’s commitment to finding a just and lasting settlement.

[Theresa Villiers]

Will the Minister condemn the actions of the Turkish authorities in reopening parts of the beachfront town of Famagusta as this is causing great distress to the Greek Cypriots who were driven from those homes 48 years ago and have never been able to return? Such provocative actions make it harder to achieve a negotiated settlement.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact that the suburb of Varosha within Famagusta is being fenced off underlines the importance of reaching a comprehensive Cyprus settlement. The UK strongly opposes any destabilising actions. We support the UN Security Council resolutions covering Varosha, the latest of which calls for the immediate reversal of the Turkish course of action and of all steps taken on Varosha since October 2020.

Iran’s Nuclear Programme

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House expresses grave concern at the imminent prospect of a nuclear armed Iran; calls on the Government in its ongoing negotiations in respect of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) agreement to seek to extend the sunset clauses, enact a stricter monitoring regime, retain terrorist proscriptions, and expand its scope to include Iran’s other destabilising activities in the region.

There are significant concerns, as set out in the motion, at the negotiated deal that is apparently about to be signed. I have been actively seeking an opportunity to raise those concerns over Iran’s destabilising activities for a number of months. I give thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time in the main Chamber, and to my many cross-party colleagues who supported the application.

This debate could not come at a more important time. On 9 June, the UK, Germany and France released a joint statement saying that they are ready to conclude a deal with Iran that would restore the joint comprehensive plan of action, and urging Iran to seize the diplomatic opportunity it presented. On Monday, indirect talks between the United States and Iran resumed in Doha.

This is by no means the first time that we have debated Iran in this place, and I dare say it will not be the last, but today’s debate could perhaps be the last opportunity to evaluate the merits or otherwise of a return to the JCPOA nuclear agreement. I firmly believe that, whatever one’s view—we will hear a range of them today, no doubt—it is vital that, before any deal is signed, our Government hear the opinions of Members of this House.

Anxieties over Iran are felt acutely by many across the House, as I am sure we will hear. I am on the record as having been very sceptical of the original 2015 deal, believing it to be too limited in scope to prevent Iran’s malign activities and far too weak in enforcement to prevent a nuclear Iran, should Iran choose that path. That view was shared at the time by many—including, we have subsequently learned, a number of those who were close to the negotiations. I think, for example, of the noble Lord Hammond and the former Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon, who have both subsequently expressed their concerns at the limited nature of the deal that was ultimately signed.

Whatever one’s thoughts about the JCPOA, the fundamentally different circumstances we face today must be confronted. It is always easy to stick with what one has been involved in for a long time; of course there is pride among those who have negotiated relentlessly on this issue, both here in the UK, in the Foreign Office, and particularly in the Biden Administration, among those officials who were previously in the Obama Administration. However, it is time to appreciate what has happened in the seven years since the deal was signed.

Iran’s nuclear programme has continued apace. While the terms of the JCPOA restricted Iran’s enrichment of uranium to 3.67% fissile purity and a stockpile of only 300 kg of uranium, as of last month the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Iran has been enriching uranium up to a purity of 60%—a short technical step from weapons-grade levels of 90%.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

rose—

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

I am spoilt for choice, but I will give way first to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers).

[Theresa Villiers]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that, far from the JCPOA-minus that seems to be in prospect, we need a tougher deal with Iran that reflects its transgressions in compliance with the current agreement? We must reflect those transgressions in a deal that is actually powerful in preventing Iran from developing its nuclear programme.

[Robert Jenrick]

I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend, who has been interested and engaged in this issue for a long time. The point she makes, which I hope I will make over the course of my remarks, is that we do want a negotiated settlement and agreement, but it must be one that is robust and has the effect of preventing both Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and its wider malign activities in the region that are harming our key partners, our friends and ourselves.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have been very clear that we are open to a negotiated solution, but that negotiated solution needs to deliver on the ground in Northern Ireland and address the very real problems with the protocol, which the hon. Gentleman acknowledges—namely the fact that the people of Northern Ireland cannot currently benefit from UK tax and state aid decisions, and the fact that there is still full customs implementation on goods coming into Northern Ireland. In order to address those issues, it is not just the implementation of the protocol that needs to be addressed; the protocol itself needs to change, and we need that change in the mandate from the EU. It is absolutely our preference to have a negotiated solution with the EU, but we have to be clear that those changes need to happen; otherwise the protocol simply will not deliver on the ground in Northern Ireland, or restore the balance as set out in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and we will not see the Executive in Northern Ireland back up and running, which is what we want.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

The EU’s approach to the protocol is so unreasonable that it is banning the movement of tree saplings from Great Britain to Northern Ireland for planting for the Queen’s platinum jubilee. Will the Foreign Secretary promise that her new enhanced green channel will disapply not just customs rules, but these unreasonable and excessive sanitary and phytosanitary rules on plants and foods?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend is right to point out the very real issues the protocol is causing, particularly on SPS rules, and particularly in respect of goods that there is no plan to transport to the Republic of Ireland. She is right that our proposals will ensure those goods are able to travel freely through the green lane into Northern Ireland as part of a trusted trader scheme. For any company violating that scheme and not following the rules, there will be enforcement, so that we make sure we protect the EU single market. This is a pragmatic solution. We are supplying commercial data to the EU in real time, so that it can manage the EU single market while we protect our UK single market.

Prime Minister’s Visit to India

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

The right hon. Gentleman should be congratulating the Prime Minister on going to visit one of the world’s largest and oldest democracies, with which we have a deep and broad relationship. India is the world’s sixth largest economy and is set to be the third largest by 2050. Its population is bigger than those of the United States and European Union combined. The relationship between democracies, especially at this time, with democracies under threat, is vital. He asked about the current trade deal. It would supercharge the growth of our trading relationship. Products such as Scotch whisky, let alone cars, currently face tariffs of more than 100%, so there could be particular benefits for the people of Scotland in agreeing this trade deal. If he had been here to listen to the Foreign Secretary earlier, he would know that she answered questions on the relationship with Kashmir, which I am sure we will come to later in this session.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Does the Minister share my frustration that so often India’s reputation on human rights is traduced in this place unreasonably? Of course, the long-standing dispute in Kashmir gives rise to complexities and suffering, but we must always remember that India is a democracy that respects the rule of law and is doing its best to deal with a very difficult security situation in Kashmir.

[Vicky Ford]

My right hon. Friend speaks so eloquently on this subject. India is one of the world’s oldest democracies and there is a unique living bridge, including a 1.6 million-strong Indian diaspora in the UK, that connects our countries in so many ways. We must continue to have close, honest and open friendships with countries, such as with Rwanda, because it is important to have these friendships so that we can raise issues that concern us, such as on human rights, when they come up.

Christians and Religious Minorities: India

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this has considered the matter of the persecution of Christians and religious minorities in India.

It has been a while since we had a debate on this issue, although a few days ago we were fortunate enough to have a debate on India-UK trade negotiations, introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I commented on the issue of the persecution of Christians and other ethnic groups in India during that debate, ever mindful that this debate was coming up. I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman here; in fact, I am pleased to see everyone here. I wanted to mention that debate, because perhaps it was a warm-up for this debate. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief. Looking around this hall, I see that most of the people here are members of it. Indeed, some are officers of the APPG.

I am always an optimist, and always have been; I live my life along those lines. I always look to better things. This debate looks to better things in India, ever mindful that we have a special relationship. It is my hope that things in life will get better. I prefer the glass half full to the glass half empty, and think we should try to build the world a better future. That is at the crux of this debate. With prayer and perseverance, crises may resolve, relationships will heal, and collectively we inch towards a better world. I believe we can achieve that if we all have the same motivation, and try to achieve the same goal.

I am pleased to see the Minister for Levelling Up Communities in her place—I look forward to her response—and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) on the Opposition Front Bench. I am also glad to see my good friend from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson)—there is not a debate that she is at that I am not at alongside her, and vice versa. I am very pleased to see the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who has just joined the all-party parliamentary group, here to support the debate. I thank the Library for the background information it has given us.

Freedom of religion or belief is always my hope, but looking back on the past year in India, it cannot be said to have been there for Christians and other religious or belief minorities. Back in 2016, in his address to the United States Congress, India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, said that

“For my Government, the Constitution is its real holy book. And in that holy book, freedom of faith, speech and franchise, and equality of all citizens, regardless of background, are enshrined as fundamental rights.”

To be fair to President Modi, he has the motivation to do that, but the reality is very different. Some of the examples I will refer to are evidence of where that is not happening. That is what the debate is about. President Modi also said, referring to some extremely violent clashes, that a new law would have

“ no effect on citizens of India, including Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, Christians and Buddhists.”

Well, if only. In fact, it has an effect on all the religious minorities. They no longer have the freedom they once had. They can no longer follow their beliefs and express their religious views. Today’s debate offers time to stop and reflect on the situation regarding freedom of religion or belief in India and the problems that persist today.

In January 2021, this same topic was discussed by this House. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Harrow East and everyone else here was present for that debate. Some might wonder why we are raising the subject again. Well, I will tell the House: we are raising it quite simply because, looking back at developments in India over the last 12 months, we find a string of human rights abuses and the suffering of Christians. More than ever, Her Majesty’s Government need to take additional steps to encourage full and rigorous defence of freedom of religion or belief for all. The steps they have taken so far are clearly not enough. Christians and other minorities continue to be failed by efforts in this regard.

In the previous debate, I commented on the lack of representation of Christians and other groups in the political sphere, but looking through the Library background briefing, I see it shows that at least one of India’s states is taking steps to ensure that there is political representation of all groups.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Many minority communities have played prominent roles in Indian politics and public life since the country’s foundation in 1948, and that continues today.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Lady is right that there are examples in the past, but in many Indian states, representation for minority groups is not in place. Previously, there was a free country where freedom to practise one’s religion was in place, as President Modi said in 2016, but today, in 2022, the same cannot be said. I note that the right hon. Lady is a sponsor of the annual Open Doors event. I gently remind her that in the past year, India has seen grave violations of freedom or belief. A report by the United Christian Forum highlighted that 2021 was one of the worst years for attacks on Christians in India, with ongoing impunity for the perpetrators of violence. In 2013, Open Doors’ world watch list ranked India 31st of the 50 countries where Christians face the highest levels of persecution; and last month, in its latest list, India was ranked 10th. In short, there can be little doubt that the situation is getting worse at an alarmingly fast rate.

The research sounds the alarm on the escalation of freedom or belief violations in India—not just against Christians, but against those of other faiths and beliefs. In many cases, freedom of religion or belief is a litmus test for the full realisation of other human rights. When citizens cannot freely exercise their right to freedom of religion or belief, it is depressingly inevitable that other human rights are being compromised.

At the heart of all freedom of religion or belief is the ability freely to change one’s religion or belief, free from fear. In other words, a Hindu should be able to become Muslim or Christian. Unfortunately, that is practically impossible in about a third of India’s states. There is some flexibility in some states, but there are certainly states where there is no flexibility at all. A third of India’s 28 states prohibit or limit religious conversion to protect the dominant religion, Hinduism, from perceived threats from religious minorities. That is entirely unnecessary; it stems from prejudice against non-Hindu religions and support for Hindutva, an ideology that does not count Indians who are Christian or from other religious minorities as true Indians because they have allegiances that lie outside India. They might believe in something other than Hinduism, but their allegiance to the Indian state is not in doubt. The Indian Government must look at where they are on that, discuss those issues, and make sure that there is opportunity for all.

Speaking of opportunity, the background information given to us for this debate says:

“Christians and Muslims…do not qualify for the officially reserved jobs or school placements available”

to Hindus,

“putting these groups at a significant economic and social disadvantage.”

These things need to be fair. If a country’s constitution mentions freedom and equality, the country should ensure those things, not draw away from them.

This is not an easy debate. I am well aware of our countries’ close relationship and I welcome it. Indeed, the other day, the hon. Member for Harrow East and I mentioned how important that closeness was, particularly when it comes to trade between the UK and India.

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

Freedom of religion is a fundamental right that must be defended and should be a high priority in our foreign policy. I have spoken out many times on the plight of Christians facing discrimination and oppression around the world, but it is vital that we base debates on such crucial issues on the facts. I am concerned that India is not getting a fair hearing in this Parliament.

Diversity, inclusion and respect for minority faiths has been a core principle of the state of India since its inception. In any country, there will be wrongdoers and extremists who commit crimes and incite hatred against minorities. Think of the vile abuse shouted from the so-called “convoy for Palestine” on the Finchley Road—just one of a record number of disgraceful antisemitic incidents recorded in this country last year alone. What is important is to look at is how a state responds to such criminal and unacceptable activities.

It is clear that India’s respect for the rule of law, its independent judiciary, its Human Rights Commission, its vibrant free press and its thriving democracy ensure that the greatest efforts are made to protect minorities from attack and from unfair treatment. Equality before the law and religious freedom are constitutionally protected in India. Not only that, the right of minorities to promote their identities and cultures is also constitutionally protected.

Institutions such as the National Commission for Minorities and the Ministry of Minority Affairs work actively to safeguard the rights of minority faiths. There are extensive government assistance programmes dedicated to minorities, including the Nai Roshni project to support leadership development among women. India’s phenomenal economic success in recent years is bringing millions of people of all faiths out of poverty across India.

Any person in India who has been attacked or treated unfairly because of their religion has my sympathy—especially Christians, whose faith I share. All such cases must be taken seriously by law enforcement authorities. However, we need to view them in the context of a minority population that could be as high as 200 million people. Among such a massive group, it is sadly inevitable that some will be victims of crime and disorder.

I find it disturbing when hon. Members assert that law enforcement authorities are somehow complicit in such attacks. If there is evidence, it should be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities in India; if there is not, claims of complicity by the authorities should not be repeated. I would make a comparison with the allegations routinely made against the Royal Ulster Constabulary during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Just as it is wrong to stigmatise the RUC with allegations of collusive behaviours without solid evidence, it is wrong to make those allegations about organisations in India.

I would also say that before trying to pass judgment on other countries, we should reflect on where the UK has failed minority groups. Most notoriously, the Windrush scandal caused deep hurt and suffering, and systemic problems at the Home Office clearly contributed to what happened.

In conclusion, India’s record on minority faiths is infinitely better than that of almost all its regional neighbours—especially Pakistan and China, where there are grave concerns about the treatment of religious minorities. In contrast, members of Christian, Muslim and other minority communities in India play a hugely successful, visible and positive role in business, politics, public life, media and culture. It is something we should all celebrate. It reflects the Government of India’s vision of “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas”: together, for everyone’s growth, with everyone’s trust.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate and on all the work he does as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I think we would all acknowledge is dedicated, committed and sincere.

Speaking in my capacity as vice-chair of the APPG, I recognise that when it comes to India, there is understandable reticence when tackling the subject of this debate, given the historical and current ties between the UK and India. To put it bluntly, the largest democracy in the world should not need or want other countries—not least the UK, given our colonial history—to criticise it about a fundamental human right and foundation of democracy, namely freedom of religion or belief. However, it is because of our close relationship with, friendship with and support for India, as well as because we want freedom of religion or belief for everyone everywhere, that we have to call out the concerns, particularly those expressed by Muslims and Christians in India, about serious violations of freedom of religion or belief in that country.

It is because India is a great country, founded historically and constitutionally upon a respect for other religions, that we take seriously the concerning reports of increasing discrimination and persecution of religious minorities in some parts of India. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, India is a massive country. It has 1.4 billion people. It is complex, so any judgment on India will be multifaceted.

My hon. Friend also said, quite correctly, that virtually every country, including our own, has lessons to learn about freedom of religion or belief. Having said that, FORB is not just a lobby for religious minorities’ rights or indeed for one religion or another. It is for everyone, everywhere. It is the foundation of a good, functioning democracy, and it is good for a growing economy and for peace and security. It is testament to the Hindu Sanskrit verse Vasudeva Kutumbakam, meaning “The whole world is one family”, that faith communities such as Jews, Parsis and Christians have long found a home in the wonderful land of India, even before its young secular constitution came into effect in 1950.

It is worth noting that Christians have been living and flourishing in India for over 1,500 years. They were free to manifest their faith and were key contributors to modern India’s development. There are many Christians and churches flourishing across various parts of India. Some have thousands attending every Sunday, and those who are able to attend do so without any issue whatsoever. However, in recently years we have sadly seen a decline in tolerance towards the Christian faith in some—I emphasise the word “some”—of India’s states, particularly in rural areas and where churches are run independently.

Any state has the right to scrutinise Christian churches and organisations that are run illegally, but the burning of churches, desecration of altars and beating of pastors or congregation members by various radical mobs is totally unacceptable and must not be tolerated. It is not the India we have known for hundreds of years, nor does it reflect its historic principles or, as we have heard, the principles in its constitution.

It was deeply worrying to hear reports in December that the Karnataka assembly secretariat had instructed the department responsible for minorities’ welfare to submit a report on all religious conversions in the state over the past 25 years, in what appears to be groundwork for the anti-conversion law that the ruling Bharatiya Janata party has promised to announce. BJP MLA Gulihatti Shekhar, who presided over the meeting, has controversially instructed district authorities and the police intelligence wing to conduct a survey of the state’s 1,700-odd churches and prayer halls to examine their legality.

Although this may seem like a direct attack on the Christian faith, it should also be noted that Hindu temples have been and still are under security in various states for the status of their legality. After independence, the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 was passed, and Tamil Nadu temples are under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. That is incompatible with the fundamental rights granted to every Indian citizen in the constitution. This should matter to all in India’s 75th years of independence who seek to uphold the constitutional principles described by Prime Minister Modi as the real holy book.

As Sadhguru, the founder of Isha Foundation, wrote last year,

“If people do not have the freedom to practice their religion the way they want, what kind of freedom is that?”

India is experiencing Islamophobia and Christianophobia, which in response can lead to Hinduphobia. This is all a far cry from the founding principles of India. It is a sad stain on modern India.

People of all faiths, especially Hindus, Muslims and Christians, should stand together in solidarity, both in the UK and India, and must surely condemn some of the following incidents. Some 505 violent incidents against Christians were recorded by the United Christian Forum for Human Rights in 2021, including false accusations leading to arbitrary police detention, arrests and prosecution, forced conversion, hate campaigns, assault, death threats, illegal occupations of churches, forced displacement, acts of public humiliation, disruption of religious gatherings, and the looting and destruction of Christian homes, church buildings and other Church-owned properties. The attacks against the Chhattisgarh Christian community in January included imprisonment, injury, arson and forced conversion.

[Theresa Villiers]

We have heard about the controversy surrounding rules to regulate conversion, but I get the very strong impression from those who understand those issues that the laws are designed to protect people from forced conversion, which is a very real risk—it is also a problem in Pakistan. It is very often young Christian women who are vulnerable to the pressure of forced conversion, forced marriage and forced conversion to Islam. That is what the laws are trying to prevent.

[Fiona Bruce]

The concern, of course, is the misuse of such laws.

Pastor Rakesh Babu and his family were brutally beaten at their home in Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh, by unidentified men armed with wooden logs as they gathered to pray in their parsonage, a tiny room attached to the church where Pastor Babu had served for 15 years. A week earlier, he had been threatened with jail if he continued to encourage others to join him in prayer. Worryingly, after the attack, the pastor struggled to get local police to properly register his report. Mervyn Thomas, the founder-president of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, told me that police often refuse to register first information reports and that over a number of years, perpetrators of communal violence in a number of areas have not been penalised. More information about that can be found in the CSW reports.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who as ever has secured a debate to continue to champion his interest in religious freedoms across the world. He, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) and others in this House are assiduous members of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief. They stand up also for people with no faith, and that is a very positive part of their group.

As we know, India is a proudly diverse and multifaith democracy with a secular constitution that places freedom of religion or belief at its heart. That is welcome statutory backing for equality and protection of minority rights. India’s diverse communities and its proud record of religious freedom with rights for religious minorities is unthinkable in many other countries of Asia. It is also noteworthy that in India there is political representation for minorities in Parliament and in the Cabinet. There is still some disproportionality relative to other countries in the region, but the attempt to diversify and provide role models from different communities in leadership positions should be recognised and placed on the record.

We have heard Members in today’s debate express multifaceted and broad-ranging concerns about increasing numbers of attacks on minority groups. As Members have highlighted, there is a raft of anti-conversion laws that have targeted Christians in some Indian states. Although the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom has reported that very few arrests have been made under those laws, it cannot be right that people face sentences of up to four years for violating anti-conversion laws. I urge the Minister to address that question in her concluding remarks.

There are also numerous concerns relating to the treatment of Muslims in India, which is what I want to press the Minister on. Research by the House of Commons Library indicates that some 4,000 people have been arrested in Uttar Pradesh alone under its contentious anti-cow-slaughter legislation. NGOs have criticised the police for their inadequacy in responding to complaints of violence against Muslims in that dispute. I hope that the Minister will mention that in her concluding remarks.

Arguably more worrying, and a point made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West, is the general direction of travel being witnessed in pockets of Indian society, with the Citizenship (Amendment) Act seen by many as anti-Muslim. Human Rights Watch, among others, has highlighted that “mobs” have been reported assaulting Muslim men with impunity, and that deserves to be looked at closely and to be part of the ongoing dialogue the FCDO is having with India on trade. It is right that these issues are highlighted and addressed by the Indian Government.

I know that many in India have added their voices to the condemnation arising across the world at this trend. Islamophobia, anti-Sikh hate, anti-Christian actions and general persecution of minorities are not something that most Indians believe in. Indeed, the majority would be repulsed by the association of their proud country with these actions.

The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Congleton are correct in expressing caution, given the traumatic past relationship between India and the UK, with many painful memories associated with the colonisation period in India. Criticism from this Chamber can be difficult to hear. I hear the exhortation from the hon. Member for Harrow East to visit India, and during the forthcoming Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit to Delhi in April, MPs will seek to develop a deeper understanding of the complexity and diversity of India on the part of the UK Parliament.

[Theresa Villiers]

In the light of that mutual understanding, does the hon. Lady regret that during the Batley and Spen by-election, Labour circulated a leaflet showing our Prime Minister and Mr Modi together, with the title:

“Don’t risk a Tory MP who is not on your side.”

That was very divisive and it upset many in the Hindu community.

2002 Gujarat Riots

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) and to you, Mr Davies, for allowing me to speak briefly. As the hon. Member has said, this is an important opportunity to remember all the innocent victims of those terrible events in Gujarat 20 years ago, which of course includes the 59 people who died on the Sabarmati express train. Like the hon. Member, I express my condolences to the families of those people, to the hon. Member’s constituents, and to everyone who lost loved ones in that shocking outbreak of violent rioting.

It is important to acknowledge that there have been extensive investigations into the events of 2002, including a special investigation team appointed in 2009 by the Supreme Court of India. A number of people have been convicted and given long prison sentences, and these matters have, of course, also been the subject of extensive scrutiny and debate in the Indian Parliament. The values of respect for the rule of law, parliamentary democracy and constitutional protection of the rights of religious minorities are at the heart of the Indian political system, and those values have shaped the response to the tragic events in Gujarat. There has been a clear determination to learn from what happened, to do everything possible to stop such riots ever occurring again, and to bring to justice the perpetrators of this completely unacceptable violence and rioting.

Oral Answers to Questions

Theresa Villiers Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I will pass my hon. Friend’s comments to our noble Friend Lord Ahmad, who I know takes these issues incredibly seriously. He visited New York in October to hold events with Afghan women and to speak in the UN’s annual debate on women, peace and security. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has visited a number of countries in the region and beyond to solicit their support in alleviating the situation in Afghanistan.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

The Open Doors world watch list identifies Afghanistan as the most dangerous place in the world to be a Christian. Will the Government put the protection and support of Christians around the world and in Afghanistan at the heart of their foreign policy?

[James Cleverly]

Freedom of religion or belief remains an incredibly important strand of UK foreign policy. The plight of Christians in Afghanistan is dire, but indeed that reflects the plight of a number of other religious and ethnic minorities in Afghanistan. A cornerstone of our foreign policy is our pursuit of genuine freedom for all, and freedom of religion or belief is an important part of that—without it, is anyone really free at all?