Westminster Hall

Thursday 17th November 2022 Westminster Hall

Thursday 17 November 2022

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

War in Ukraine: Illicit Finance

Thursday 17th November 2022 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Second Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, The cost of complacency: illicit finance and the war in Ukraine, HC 168, and the Government response, HC 688.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. In speaking to the report today, I will outline a series of points made by the Committee in this report and in its 2018 “Moscow’s Gold” report. I will also talk about SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation —and the case for more action on lawfare.

Our report finds that the UK sanctions response to the war, while ambitious, was initially limited by a lack of resourcing, and the new beneficial owners register still contains loopholes that put some individuals under the threshold for having to declare beneficial ownership. That is against the public interest. The report, which I strongly endorse—I encourage folks to read it should they have time—proposes a number of reforms, including new transatlantic sanctions partnerships, so that London and New York can work more closely together, and the appropriate resourcing of enforcement agencies. Both reports, and the Intelligence and Security Committee, note the lack of funding for the National Crime Agency and other serious crime organisations in the country and that some of them are threatened by the lawyers of oligarchs—potential bad actors. We believe that to be very strongly against our national interest.

In my opinion, and I think also in the opinion of the Committee and many people engaged with this issue, including the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and other hon. Members, the UK and its offshore territories have for too long turned a blind eye to the transfer and concealment of illicit or semi-licit—if that is a word—wealth, and have granted a number of high-risk individuals political and judicial protections that they do not deserve.

We have built a significant industry catering to the needs of some really quite unsavoury characters. To date, vast sums of both illicit and licit finance have been recycled through the UK’s bespoke package of the financial services industry, legal services, public relations services, private eyes, estate agents, luxury assets, concierge services, visa and citizenship routes and the private education system.

Transparency International and various other bodies have estimated that the amount of wealth, criminal or otherwise, that has flowed from the former Soviet Union via corrupt German and Scandinavian banks, via UK shell companies, to tax havens—sadly, very often the UK—is probably between £500 billion and £1 trillion. That is one of the greatest flows, probably the greatest flow, of illicit wealth in the history of humanity. The fact that we in London are a core part of that flow is frankly pretty shameful.

I was discussing the issue with the great Bill Browder the other day. One of the problems is that this is not just Colombian drug cartel money; this is money that has come from deeply corrupt, but potentially legal deals. For example, an executive at one of the big state gas or oil firms at some points in the 1990s could, if they had the connections, buy an oilfield or a gasfield equivalent to the North sea, for $100,000.

By borrowing that money off organised crime or other areas, that person would effectively become a billionaire overnight, by the sometimes legal, sometimes not, but deeply unethical transfer of state assets—the privatisation of state assets using organised crime as muscle and bureaucratic connections to facilitate it. That is what has happened in the former Soviet Union—in not only Russia, but also Ukraine back in the day, especially under Yanukovych and others, and Kazakhstan. Clearly, that has enriched a small number of people in the United Kingdom, but I do not believe it has been good for the United Kingdom as a whole. It is not good for our reputation and for London as a service industry—although it is undoubtedly true that it has very considerably enriched a small number of people.

In 2018, the Foreign Affairs Committee published an excellent report under the previous Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), called “Moscow’s Gold: Russian Corruption in the UK”. That report detailed that, despite the Government’s crackdown on Russian activity in the wake of the Skripal poisoning, back before the Ukraine war, business simply continued as usual for most of Putin’s allies in the United Kingdom.

One of the depressing things for me is that I was saying this before I was an MP, so nobody was listening, and have said it as an MP—and still nobody really listened. In 2007, back in the Munich conference speech, Putin declared a new cold war against the west. We have studiously done our best to turn a blind eye because it was too difficult for western states to get their heads around the fact that, in President Putin, we had an aggressive rival who did not accept the international system, would openly challenge it and would fight wars on his borders to secure what he thought were his vital interests—we can debate that or not. After his speech the invasion of Georgia happened, and then in 2014 there was the invasion of Ukraine through proxy groups that confused some people, but should not have done.

Before, during and after those events we have had a wave of assassinations, imprisonments and arrests. I met with Alexei Navalny’s chief of staff. Navalny now may be the most high profile political prisoner in the world; he is in a detention camp in permanent solitary confinement. That is the price for challenging President Putin. Last night, I was chatting to Marina Litvinenko, the wonderful wife of Alexander Litvinenko, who was murdered in Piccadilly back in 2006—he died of radiation poisoning. The problem is that we repeatedly turned a blind eye. Our love of Russian money flowing through the financial and legal systems clouded our moral judgment. That has enabled Putin’s regime. We need to learn from those errors and mistakes.

What is the scale of the problem today? From 2008 to 2015, there were no state checks on tier 1 golden visas. At least eight individuals now sanctioned, or under investigation, are thought to have obtained citizenship through those means. They are citizens like you or me, Mr Efford. How can that be right or in the national interest? The National Crime Agency estimates that money laundering costs the UK £100 billion annually. Serious or organised crime is estimated to have a price tag of £37 billion.

Russians accused of corruption or having close links to the Putin regime have bought at least £1.5 billion worth of property in Great Britain according to Transparency International—that is a vast amount of property. One of the reasons why so many people are struggling with their mortgages is that there are vastly inflated prices for property in London and the south-east. That is in part because it is seen as an easy way to launder money: to pay over the odds for property and then to sell. Even if it is then sold at a loss of 10% or 20%, these people have laundered—legalised—a vast amount of corrupt and criminal, or semi-corrupt and semi-criminal, money.

That £1.5 billion is part of nearly £5.5 billion worth of property in the UK that has been purchased through offshore shell companies. That problem happened under new Labour and the coalition with the Liberal Democrats. What on earth is this country doing allowing offshore shell companies to be vehicles to buy property? It is just wrong. It is wrong that so many people close to Putin own so much property in this country. It is wrong that so many offshore vehicles have been used. What on earth are we doing allowing that to happen, and what on earth are we going to do to stop it? I would love the Minister to reassure us, rather than just saying that we are concerned about it.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and I congratulate him. I want to be clear that this is not just an issue about Russia. In my constituency and elsewhere, the red princes and princesses of communist China are buying up property and inflating prices. We should not just focus on Russia when we talk about illicit finance.

[Bob Seely]

I thank the hon. Member for his very sensible point. There is absolutely a wider issue. As well as shell companies, there are vast developments on the south side of the river, around the US embassy, where entire blocks are being bought up as investment options rather than being used to provide housing for Londoners. That is shocking, especially because we have a housing shortage. There is a wider argument on reform of our housing in the UK for giving options first to allow ordinary folks to be buying it, rather than—as much as we love them—Hong Kong, Chinese or Indonesian investors to block buy endless numbers of flat and rent them out or never have them occupied.

I was going to talk a bit about the Azerbaijani laundromat. Between 2012 and 2014, about £3 billion went through UK shell companies as part of the so-called Azerbaijani laundromat; funding was dispersed from Azerbaijani officials to various outlets in this country. As well as that, London’s open economic environment has been a key centre for raising finance for companies or individuals over whom there are now very considerable question marks.

In 2017, En+ was floated on the London stock exchange, raising £1.5 billion from international investors in an initial public offering. We now know—well, we knew at the time—that En+ was very closely associated with Oleg Deripaska, despite his ownership of companies linked to supplying Russian military materials and sanctioned Russian shareholders. He himself is now sanctioned, I believe. En+ and Oleg Deripaska were part of a considerable lobbying effort by a former Member of the House of Lords—a former Conservative Minister, as much as it shames me to say it—to separate Deripaska from En+ in frankly pretty questionable circumstances.

Shortly after the Skripal poisoning, Russia continued to sell Russian sovereign debt in London, facilitated by the sanctioned Russian bank VTB. While our financial services provide anonymity to those who wish to invest, many UK legal firms have sought to further silence those who question the origin of investments.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. I agree with everything he has to say. On sanctions, he will know, not least from the talk he did yesterday afternoon with a group of Ukrainians, that there is a big call in Ukraine at the moment to turn the freezing sanctions into confiscation sanctions, and to use the money we are holding, which would presumably otherwise be given back to the oligarchs, for the reconstruction of Ukraine. Would my hon. Friend comment on that?

[Bob Seely]

I would love to; we were debating that yesterday at the Henry Jackson Society with Bill Browder and a number of other people. My hon. Friend is welcome to correct me on this, but I think Canada has prepared an Act to enable that frozen money effectively to be given to the Ukrainian authorities or set up in some kind of international fund to help reconstruction in Ukraine.

[Mr Djanogly]

The Act is quite straightforward. By way of clarification, it takes the existing sanctions legislation, including the Canadian Magnitsky law, and latches on to that the ability to change freezing orders into confiscation orders. It is a relatively simple way of going about what could be a very complicated process.

[Bob Seely]

Indeed. If it is effective, I look forward to working with my hon. Friend, and potentially other Members, to see how we can bring in such a law in the UK, so that we move from freezing money to taking money and using it for a more moral purpose.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. I am pleased to see this report and the recommendations in it. I have been talking to Ukrainian MPs since the visit that he and I made to Kyiv. One of the biggest issues they have raised is about not just having sanctions but having a sanctions regime that ratchets up internationally. The sanctions partnership is absolutely essential.

Just now in the House, the Prime Minister was congratulating the work done already on sanctions, but we cannot stop there. We need to move on. The ramping up of sanctions and the seizing—not just freezing—of assets are absolutely being called for by Ukrainian politicians and people.

To put into context the sums the hon. Gentleman has been referring to, right now there is a $38 billion budget gap for the running of Ukraine and billions also need to be paid back in reparations. This solution is much needed and would restore the reputation of London as a financial centre, not a money laundering centre.

[Bob Seely]

That was a brief question!

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I think it was a speech.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Seely]

I give way again.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate; I will speak for a wee minute in support of him. My understanding is that in earlier questions in the Chamber, the Government indicated that they were prepared to look at—I am not sure they committed themselves entirely—not just seizing the goods belonging to Russian oligarchs, but using that money for a purpose. The purpose we all asked for in the Chamber that day was for the money to be given to Ukraine. Would there not be some poetic justice if Russian money was used to directly help the Ukrainians?

[Bob Seely]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. One of the things we were discussing yesterday was quite how that could happen. The initiative is being led by Bill Browder, who has championed the cause of Sergei Magnitsky ever since he was tortured and murdered 13 years ago yesterday. Ten years ago—a decade ago this month—the late, great John McCain brought in the first Magnitsky laws in the United States, and everyone else across the globe, or at least 35 nations, has followed suit.

The person dealing with this issue in Ukraine is a very powerful Ukrainian politician called Kira Rudik, who was also with us yesterday. She is in London today. She is trying to get a global coalition to do just what we have been discussing. I hope that we will soon have a draft law here that we can send to Government, debate and put down in some form to say, “These are the next steps.”

I pay tribute to Kyle Parker, too, who was also in the discussions we had yesterday. He is great man. A senior congressional staffer—these people have much more power in the US than they tend to in the UK—he wrote the Magnitsky Act and worked with Congressmen and Senators to get it through both Houses in the US system. We should be doing the same here.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs—it is a bit of a mouthful—are effectively the abuse of law by the rich to intimidate journalists, campaigners and others. SLAPPs are absolutely part and parcel of this system. Imagine the great caravan of wealth that flowed from the former Soviet Union to the tax havens of the Caribbean. It needed facilitators, which were the financial services companies, some of which are corrupt German and Scandinavian banks. I think their names are out there: Deutsche Bank, in Estonia, I think, and one or two others.

The system also needed attack dogs to protect the flow of that vast caravan of sometimes criminal wealth, and those were the legal firms. Those lawyers effectively built a business model of legalised intimidation whereby journalists and campaigners can be threatened. If someone in the Soviet Union, or Russia post the collapse of the Soviet Union, wanted to stop a journalist from trying to investigate them, they would ultimately just kill them. In the UK and the west, that is more difficult—not impossible, but it is more difficult to kill people and get away with it.

People are not physically destroyed in this country; instead, the legal system is used to financially destroy them. That has sadly happened to a number of people, including Charlotte Leslie, a former colleague of ours, and the wonderful journalist Catherine Belton. Various campaign groups have also been targeted. Most recently, Chatham House has been a target. Sadly, I understand it has given in to threats and is having to rewrite some of its reports.

This business model was set up to service the needs of the aggressive rich and powerful, including organised criminals and oligarchs, who did not want their affairs investigated. The three methods were the abuse of libel law, the abuse of privacy law—the right to privacy, meaning no one else can look into someone’s affairs—and data protection. The aim in all the cases was to mount up such staggering costs that even a technical victory would destroy the opponent, render them bankrupt or destroy their reputation. If they were a journalist, the aim was to make a newspaper or publishing house invest hundreds of thousands of pounds in defending them against the vast sums that oligarchs were willing to throw at them to make their lives difficult.

A slightly different case is that of the Maltese corruption journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. It was a great privilege to recently meet her son, who works in the UK media. At the time she was murdered, she was facing 47 libel lawsuits, almost all of which were from UK law firms. That is staggering: before she was physically destroyed, she was being psychologically and financially destroyed.

I have discussed Catherine Belton and the costs of SLAPPs. My final point is that it is extraordinary that, as Spotlight on Corruption and Global Integrity have found, law firms in the UK currently face almost zero risk of criminal prosecution for money laundering, and there is a very limited prospect of their facing any meaningful fines. I was told privately that a number of UK law firms support that criminal money-laundering activity. Yet almost nothing is done, and almost nothing is investigated.

What are the solutions? First, close the loopholes in Companies House. I know that the Government have made strides on that, but there is more to be done. The right hon. Member for Barking is working with a number of Members on both sides of the House to tighten up the regulations. If the Government could be sympathetic, we would be grateful. Secondly, the UK’s economic crime enforcement system remains under-resourced. It needs to be better resourced, so that we can fight the bad guys and girls better.

Thirdly, we need to better supervise the so-called professional enablers, so that they cannot effectively operate outside money laundering regulations. Fourthly, as we tighten up regulations here, we need to expand our UK regulations to British overseas territories. It is absolute nonsense that criminal and organised crime and tax havens benefit people in the Caribbean.

We very much welcome the Ministry of Justice’s response to the call for evidence on SLAPPs and its proposals for legislative reform. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and I—and perhaps others—will present a Bill on SLAPPs, so that a Bill is ready when the Government want to introduce one; we love saving Government time, and increasing the productivity of Government and politicians. We will provide a model for SLAPPs law. It will ensure that SLAPPs are disposed of more quickly in court, that the costs of being attacked by SLAPPs are kept to a minimum, and that the costs for SLAPP filers are higher, which will potentially deter further SLAPPs. There are other measures, but I will not go into them now.

In summary, as a result of the UK’s economic permissiveness, we have for too long become a safe haven for kleptocrats. That has to end. The situation is getting better, but it is a shame that it took a major war in eastern Europe for things to change dramatically. We take pride in the openness and transparency of speech, and in the UK’s open economic system. However, that freedom of speech and open economic system must be better protected. A laissez-faire, criminalised free-for-all is not an open economic system; it is a corruption of that system. We need to clamp down on the sources of illicit finance coming through the UK. I urge the Government to continue reforming Companies House, to resource our enforcement bodies, and to read and take in the many excellent recommendations in the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report.

13:53

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to rise with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the Liaison Committee for providing time for the debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on his excellent opening speech. I also thank the Foreign Affairs Committee Clerks for notes in advance of the debate, and the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition for its excellent briefing. I speak as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and also as someone who is just glad to be reunited with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I knew he would be here today.

The FAC report, “The cost of complacency: illicit finance and the war in Ukraine”, in October made many recommendations, some of which have been touched on. Those that have not been mentioned include the need to implement beneficial ownership rules and to reform Companies House, including by giving the registrar powers to verify information and to remove corporate entities for wrongdoing and provide robust identity verification mechanisms. It also recommends making enforcement more effective by reforming unexplained wealth orders, or by at least assessing why they have not been as effective as the Government originally intended. The report also suggests making better use of the exchange of notes process in relation to companies incorporated overseas, reforming corporate criminal liability laws and whistleblower legislation, professionalising the sanctions unit of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and making more concerted efforts to seize assets that have been frozen by sanctions.

The Government’s response is, at best, tepid. They say that they are aware of the security threat of illicit finance and suggest that the war in Ukraine is the driving political force for action, but that leaves many people who are focused on this issue concerned that no effort was made previously and wondering why it has taken a war in Europe to drive reform and action in this area, when it has been clear to so many that illicit finance has been entering the UK at colossal levels for some time.

The Government’s response is largely being taken forward in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, but there is broad concern that it does not go far enough. For example, the Government have committed to reform of Companies House, but the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition says that they need to go much further to prevent UK-registered companies from providing a veneer of legitimacy for secretive offshore networks, by ensuring transparency over shareholders, partners and members. The Government have acknowledged the risk associated with opaque corporate ownership, but the Bill in its current form does not make the changes that would prohibit private limited companies, limited liability partnerships, limited partnerships or Scottish limited partnerships from having opaque corporate partners, and it must go further.

The UK Anti-Corruption Coalition also asked the Government to improve the register’s accuracy by verifying and publishing shareholder information. The information it holds on shareholders needs to be transparent and accurate, including names, company numbers and addresses—all the criteria that we assume is held but is not. The Bill also needs to give Companies House the power to review verification documents provided by third-party agents—usually trust and company service providers—because without that level of work, Companies House’s data will simply not be robust enough.

The Government have said that they will undertake a review of whistleblower protections and are assessing time and scope. It would be really good to have an update on that, because there is a lot of concern that, while journalists may be covered, they are not the only people who warrant protection. Journalists rely on whistleblowers inside companies and organisations, and they should be the focus of further and greater protection. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will tell us whether the Government are considering introducing a whistle- blowing Bill to protect those who seek to speak out against or uncover economic crimes and wrongdoing. That is not covered by current Government plans, so I hope the Government will follow through on their commitment to review the UK’s whistleblowing framework and present the timeline and scope of that review.

The Government say that they accept the Committee’s recommendation to establish a professional and permanent sanctions group within the FCDO. However, the global anti-corruption sanctions regime, which the UK introduced its in April 2021, has been used significantly fewer times than the 30 designations a year that the Government originally envisaged. Why has the performance been so much worse than expected? What steps are being taken to improve it, when will they be implemented, and when will they be put to use?

In response to the Committee’s recommendation to grant additional funding for law enforcement, all the Government have offered is money to fund the reform of Companies House, and they have said that the Home Office will set out an annual report to Parliament on unexplained wealth orders. Frankly, that is pathetic, and today’s statement means that the uplift in the Serious Fraud Office’s core resources budget is simply not good enough to match the level of crime in this country. The UK spends £850 million a year on funding core national level economic crime enforcement bodies, but economic crime costs the UK £290 billion a year. The National Crime Agency has suffered a 4.2% decrease in its core budget over the past five years, yet fraud has risen dramatically. It accounts for 40% of all recorded crime, yet fraud prosecutions have fallen from 42,000 in 2011 to 13,500 in 2021—a 67% decrease in a decade. The Government are simply lagging far behind the scale of the problem. The NCA needs resourcing to the scale required, and the Minister needs to raise the Government’s game.

The Committee has put forward additional asks. Given the speed with which the two economic crime Bills were put before the House, does the Minister anticipate additional legislation to rectify any gaps? Will the Government be reviewing the implementation of the two Acts? When does the Minister expect to see measurable outcomes from changes to resourcing the fight against economic crime? What outcomes is he prioritising? How does the new sustainable funding model support long-term planning to support those goals? How does public-private information sharing feed into those enforcement aims?

It would be good to hear from the Minister what progress is being made on suspicious activity reports reform. The Government have mentioned that they are interested in that, but we have not seen action on it yet. It would also be good to hear from the Minister whether the Government’s understanding of the threat of economic crime has changed. Do they see illicit finance as primarily a criminal issue or a security threat?

Golden visas—the tier 1 visa scheme—allowed a recipient to stay in the UK for three years in exchange for a minimum £1 million investment, but they became a vehicle for much laundering of corrupt money in the UK because of a lack of checks. That scheme was shut in February in response to the full-scale invasion—the second invasion—of Ukraine, but a review of the scheme, commissioned by the Home Office in March 2018, has still not been published. The Committee called for the review to be published without delay. The Government have said that they will publish it “in the near future”. I really hope that the Minister can tell us what is happening. If the Government are at all serious on this issue, they will be able to tell us today when that report will be published.

The Government did not even bother to respond to the Committee’s recommendation that they review visas issued since 2015. Have the Government concluded that none of the outstanding visa holders pose a security threat? Especially given that the Government tell us that they have changed their policy towards both Russia and China in recent weeks, will the Government be reviewing that decision? The Government have not responded to whether they plan to review those granted visas who had gone on to gain residency or citizenship. The Home Office should set out how it will deal with people with corrupt or criminal sources of wealth who have already received indefinite leave to remain or subsequent citizenship through the golden visa route. Those visas may still need to be withdrawn and other measures taken.

It would be good to hear what the Government plan to do, especially in the face of those of us who deal with the Home Office week in, week out, on behalf of constituents desperate to get family members into this country to work here, to contribute here and to care for other family members who are sick here. I have constituents who have had family members pass away while waiting for visa application decisions. I recently saw a constituent who has waited more than a decade for an asylum application to be decided—while corrupt millionaires have been able to gain access under a Government-sponsored programme, which is, frankly, simply despicable.

The UK Anti-Corruption Coalition says that 6,312 tier 1 visas—more than half of all golden visas—are being reviewed for possible national security risks. That is the scale of the problem. The Government opened the door to this. By April 2022, 10 Russian nationals subject to sanctions had previously been granted golden visas. That is what this Government have permitted in this country. In the light of today’s news from the director general of MI5 about potential attacks in this country from Iranian agents, could the Minister tell us whether any of these golden visas were issued to Iranian nationals?

How many people got this red-carpet treatment when they should have had the rug pulled from under their feet? And how are the Government now quantifying the level of damage that these visas, and their approach, have caused? The message sent across the globe has been that London and the UK have been open to blood- soaked money from wherever it comes. Frankly, secret meetings with agents of other countries—this goes right to the top of Government under the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)— have simply not been documented. This is a Government who have undermined national security on so many levels and damaged the UK.

The Government have made some reforms to tier 1 visas since 2015, but there remain glaring loopholes, including one that allowed 100 golden visa applicants to borrow money from a firm owned by Russian nationals in order to make investments that ultimately went back to Russia. How are the Government penalising those involved, and how are they seeking to capture the money that should have been here? Can the Minister give any further clarity on timing for the review of the whistleblower legislation?

I have three final points, which are much wider. The first is on corporate criminal liability. The Committee said that the Foreign Office should work across Government to encourage reform of outdated and ineffective corporate criminal liability laws that mean that it is difficult to hold large companies to account for economic crime. In response, all the Government said was that they had commissioned a report from the Law Commission and were considering further action. The initial call for evidence by the Government concluded in March 2017—five and a half years ago. The Government then reported on this in November two years ago. And the Law Commission’s options paper was published in June 2022. I hope the Minister can give us today an update on progress, because frankly it looks like the Government are not even dragging their feet; they have not even got out of bed.

I have already touched on unexplained wealth orders. Since the passage of the emergency legislation this year, only one unexplained wealth order has been applied for by law enforcement. In total, only nine UWOs relating to four cases have been obtained by the NCA since the tool was introduced in January 2018, and just one unsuccessful application for a UWO left the NCA facing £1.5 million in legal costs. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight touched on the cost imbalance and the resourcing issue. The problem is much wider, because aid cuts have led to a £3.6 million budget cut for law enforcement bodies tackling illicit finance and doing international corruption work, and have resulted in the target for the use of UWOs based on aid-funded investigations being reduced to zero. I ask the Government to increase their ambition. Through the Government, law enforcement should be able to obtain UWOs, and they should have a boost in resources to fund the expert staff and technical capabilities that they require.

The UK Anti-Corruption Coalition suggests hypothecation to boost resources and capability. It suggests that funds generated through law enforcement activities be reinvested in law enforcement budgets to fund things such as the state-of-the-art IT infrastructure and data analysis capabilities required to do the job. Law enforcement bodies are hamstrung at the moment and are desperate for resources and capability.

Between 2016 and 2021, law enforcement bodies responsible for fighting economic crime in the UK brought in £3.9 billion in confiscation and forfeiture orders and fines. If that money had been reinvested in the agencies on top of their core budgets, an additional £748 million a year would have been provided to help tackle the problem. That is nearly double the resources that the Government currently provide, so I hope the Minister will respond to the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition’s recommendation.

SLAPPs allow oligarchs to supress evidence of their corruption and protect their reputation through vexatious litigation, unfortunately and very sadly through British law firms, against those seeking to tell truth to power, including journalists and publishers. The pressure of excessive costs coupled with the personal strain of legal threats hampers the ability of investigative journalists, academics and campaigners to shine a light on evidence of illicit wealth. Between March and May, the Government called for evidence on SLAPPs, and concluded in their report that they intend to pursue legislative reform at the earliest opportunity. That requires significant change, so will the Minister outline how the Government will take forward that well overdue legislation? Will they introduce early dismissal so that courts can dismiss any case that is in the public interest, and cost protection for defendants? I hope the Minister will tell us when the Government will legislate and, more importantly, when those powers will be in place to protect those who seek to shine a light on illicit finance in the UK, which is a growing problem.

14:07

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to speak about the Foreign Affairs Committee report on illicit finance and the war in Ukraine. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for introducing this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle).

Illicit finance is not new or geographically isolated, but Putin’s war on Ukraine has shone a public light on the massive scale of economic crime. We know that Russian money is being laundered through the UK, and in the view of the report it is more likely than not being used to fund the war in Ukraine. We cannot and must not allow Britain’s financial intuitions to continue to be used to house or move dirty money.

The Foreign Affairs Committee report sets out in stark terms that there is a cost of complacency. There is a cost to our global financial standing and our national security, and a cost in lives, when laundered money is used to pay for war. Continuing this complacency and doing nothing is not an option.

Valuing, listening to and protecting those who speak out to uncover corruption is part of the answer. I particularly welcome the Committee’s recommendation that:

“The FCDO should…push for a Whistleblowing Bill to offer protection to those who speak out against, or uncover, economic crimes and other wrongdoing.”

It is often journalists who investigate and uncover critical evidence of corruption. They frequently rely on informed insiders—whistleblowers—who have usually been frustrated by failed attempts to raise the alarm internally. I welcome the Government’s commitment to stop the use of SLAPPs, as has been set out so well by the two previous speakers. It demonstrates the Government’s commitment to upholding the fundamental democratic values of free speech and a free press, ending the abuse of the UK legal system and defending investigations in the public interest.

As the report points out, journalists are not the only truth tellers who need protection. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing, I am campaigning for a whistleblowing Bill, and in the previous parliamentary Session I promoted a private Member’s Bill to create an office of the whistleblower. I note that in their response to the Committee’s report, the Government point to existing legislation designed to protect whistleblowers—the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, known as PIDA—stating that it provides

“protection to those who speak up in the public interest.”

However, PIDA, the UK’s current whistleblowing legislation, applies only to some employees, not all workers or anyone else who may reasonably learn of impropriety or criminal activity, such as trustees, volunteers, family members or customers, or others in the supply chain. It is limited. Moreover, a person who speaks out receives only limited protection from the harm or detriment that often arises when they are bullied or harassed out of their work as a result of their whistleblowing. That is no comfort for people considering speaking out where illicit finance, rogue regimes and criminal gangs are involved—the risks are simply too high.

I firmly believe that the way to uncover economic crime and illicit finance is to encourage people to report wrongdoing. Research shows that more than 40% of fraud, for instance, is detected through whistleblowers, but for people to come forward, they must feel safe. Although I was glad that the Government reiterated their commitment to reviewing the whistleblowing frame- work, I am disappointed that the scope and timing remain under consideration. The Committee report expressed a concern that the Government lack

“sufficient resources and expertise to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of these sanctions”.

If resources to do that are lacking, they will also be lacking to collect and investigate those whistleblowing tips. That is yet another reason for including whistleblower provisions in our fight against illicit finance.

For those reasons, I am calling for a unified office that will set standards for whistleblowing to which every organisation, industry and Government will comply. It will ensure that they put in place proper mechanisms to receive, examine and escalate reports where appropriate and work with law enforcement where there is evidence of wrongdoing. The Committee recognises the need for a whistleblowing Bill. I am being helpful and urging the Minister and the Government, in the light of this important report, to get behind my whistleblowing Bill, which I promoted in the previous Session, but which fell due to time. It is ready and waiting to be taken up, and I would love the Government to bring it forward as part of their legislative agenda.

14:13

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, may I say what a pleasure it is to speak in this debate? I commend the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson); I am pleased to follow her. I agree wholeheartedly with her comments about whistleblowing and the importance of having that Bill in place. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on that, because it is a positive step in the right direction. There are many things in this House we would like to do—we have ideas, we bring forward Bills, and they are not always accepted—but that Bill is certainly one that would be worthy of acceptance.

I commend the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for setting the scene so well. He has a vast knowledge, and I mean that genuinely. I very much look forward to his contributions in the Chamber. They are always detailed, informational and evidential, which I think helps us all—it helps me, anyway—to better understand things, and I appreciate that. It is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) speaking as well. He also has a depth of knowledge on this subject. We have had exceptional contributions today and others will follow, whenever the shadow Ministers speak as well.

I thank the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee for their findings in the second report into illicit finance and the war in Ukraine. Monday’s debate was the first on Ukraine that I could not attend, primarily because I was stuck at Belfast City airport and could not get away because of the fog and all the other things that were happening that day. However, I have spoken in nearly every debate involving Ukraine. I had a deep passion and interest in Ukraine long before the Russians invaded, because churches in my constituency have done missionary work and provided humanitarian aid in Ukraine for many years, way back into the 1990s. Indeed, I sponsored a Christian family in Ukraine back then.

It is clear, given the levels of illicit money laundering by the Russian kleptocracy, that the UK’s response was somewhat underprepared. This debate has followed a theme: what have we done to respond? In all honesty, the answer is probably, “Not as much as we should have.” Ultimately, to combat illicit crime from Russia, we must commit to a transatlantic partnership, so I welcome the findings of the report and the Government’s reply. At least they have understood the issue, but I do not think they went far enough. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to that, and I am certainly going to say the same thing.

At the very start of the invasion, Transparency International identified more than £1.5 billion of UK property owned by Russians accused of financial crime or with links to the Kremlin, and that will have increased since then. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) referred to how Government need to be able to take all the assets they seize and turn them into financial assistance to help the Ukrainians to rebuild their land, their country, their buildings and their infrastructure. In all honesty, I believe that that £1.5 billion—probably more now—would go a long way to helping rebuild Ukraine. It would be poetic justice if those moneys were used for that purpose.

We want calls for action. In 2019, the “Moscow’s Gold: Russian Corruption in the UK” report found the laundering of dirty money from Russia to be an instrumental problem. Until the invasion of Ukraine, there was unfortunately little commitment to tackling the problem. Through many sanctions and Bills brought forward to Parliament, we have learned our lesson about taking lax approaches to corrupt and autocratic regimes. It seems there have never been so many autocratic regimes in the world as today. The report being discussed today also stated:

“By the Government’s own measure, ‘there is a realistic possibility that the scale of money laundering impacting the UK annually is hundreds of billions of pounds’.”

The £1.5 billion I referred to earlier on is almost just picking the scab of the real corruption.

Unexplained wealth orders were used in 2021 to recover the proceeds of illicit crime. In Northern Ireland, England and Wales, £219 million was recovered. In a debate in the Chamber on that very issue, I referred to a case of money that came from Latvia and right through Germany, France and Belgium into England and it ended up in Northern Ireland. It was a massive amount of money—more than £200 million—and an example of corruption on a very high scale.

While unexplained wealth orders are a welcome move in recovering the proceeds of illicit crime, London has unfortunately become a hub for illicit money. Where does that leave the smaller regions, such as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, where it will become increasingly attractive for launderers to invest money? The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to some of the ways in which that money can be invested in an attempt to legitimise it through a legitimate company, yet that money is still economically and criminally wrong.

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill has been introduced to fight the flows of dirty money. I previously raised with the Secretary of State the fact that Companies House was identified as taking part in 89 economic crime incidents, which came to a total sum of £137 billion of potential economic damage. The Bill must introduce regulatory objectives to tackle illicit finance across this United Kingdom. I welcome the fact that it introduces new powers for robust verification requirements to ensure that business ownership across the UK is as transparent as possible. That has to be good news. When the Government do something well, I like to give them credit for that.

We must not let it slip our minds that Kremlin-backed oligarchs rely on the western transatlantic system. As I mentioned earlier, we need to protect our good relationships with other western allies to ensure that proactive steps are taken to reprimand the enablers and their proxies to whom illegal wealth is transferred. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight outlined how that is done, the procedures that take place and the ways that people cover their tracks.

The integrated review named Russia as

“the most acute threat to our security”,

and I believe that to be the case. China is undoubtably trying to catch Russia and is biting at its heels. Russia has proceeded to diminish every aspect of Ukraine’s domestic security. I am proud of our Government and Ministers’—even in the Chancellor’s statement earlier—continued commitment to Ukraine. This great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is leading the way and all the other countries—I say it with great respect to them—have almost been shamed into matching what the United Kingdom is doing. The Foreign Affairs Committee report concluded:

“The Government cannot afford to rely on rhetoric if it is to deliver on its commitment to tackle illicit finance”

so let’s get it done. We have been seen to be under-resourced in the past and that has led to our own constituents, including many of mine, losing their hard-earned money.

Our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland prides itself on the rule of law and the protection of our economy and citizens. If we do not put in the necessary means and resources, we allow Putin and his illegal regime to take advantage of the freedoms of the western world. That must stop. Like the hon. Gentleman and others, I call on the FCDO and the Minister to ensure the immediate enactment of this Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill for the betterment of our economy and the protection of our assets from Russian interference. The quicker that happens, the quicker the world will be a better place.

14:22

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Mr Efford. I am glad to wind up for the SNP in this important debate. I commend the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely)—he is a leading expert in the House on these issues. As ever, he made a powerful contribution and I commend him on his efforts. I thank the Foreign Affairs Committee for this important piece of work. I am here partly on behalf of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), who is presently engaged in a by-election in Glasgow.

If we boil down my speech to its essence, the SNP supports the report and wants to see it all implemented. I urge the Minister to show a bit more ambition and oomph than we have seen thus far in the official Government response to the report. I appreciate that there is collective responsibility, but I stress to the Minister that this is a cross-party report and these are cross-party recommendations. Where there are serious efforts to tackle this stuff, the SNP will play our part in that coalition. There is a real opportunity for the Government to make meaningful progress on these important matters, because we do have a problem. There has been a triptych of reports from the House: the “Moscow's Gold” report, which has been mentioned; the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament’s Russia report; and this report, which sits alongside both of those previous efforts.

The report broadens the point, which has been well made, that we are not just speaking about dirty Russian money. Dirty money is dirty money, wherever it comes from. Dirty money corrodes and hides in the shadows. The fewer shadows we have in our economic governance the better. I speak as a former financial services solicitor in the City, so I am familiar with the ways these rules can be gotten around. We are dealing with some of the most slippery, best-advised and richest people in society who are really good at getting round rules. We need to make sure that there are as few loopholes and grey areas as possible, because, as we have heard, the numbers are vast. The UK’s financial and professional services sectors have played a key role in bankrolling the Kremlin regime, and other regimes. That should really shame us all and give us all pause.

Illicit finance needs to be tackled. London is a major international finance centre, but it is also an international dirty finance centre, and I include Edinburgh in that and various other place in the UK, as well. This is a common effort that we need to work upon.

I do not propose to rehearse the points that have already been made, but I will pick out a few things on which I urge the UK Government to act. And I pledge SNP support in this House and the co-operation of the Scottish authorities as well, because much of this matter is reserved as opposed to devolved, and Holyrood cannot touch it.

On the golden visa review, others have called for the review to publish. Yes, the scheme has ended, but important lessons need to be learned and some individuals still give cause for concern. We need to better ventilate that issue and see that review come forward.

On the slightly misnamed Scottish limited partnerships, people should not let the name fool them; the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament cannot regulate these legal vehicles and we need to see much greater transparency about them. The fact that we can see vast tracts of the highlands, including parts of my constituency in Stirling, being owned by opaque trusts, whereby we are not sure who the ultimate beneficial owner is, is absurd. We need to get that system fixed.

I warmly endorse the comments that made about whistleblowers, but I also endorse the recommendations in the report. We need to see greater protection for whistleblowers who bring to light facts that are of public interest. I also warmly endorse the points about SLAPPs and judicial intimidation. If the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is looking for a SNP name for his Bill, count me in; I will happily swing in with those efforts.

Regarding overseas territories, at every point that we have discussed the sanctions regime on Russia after the invasion of Ukraine—I have been involved in all those discussions—I have made the point about ensuring that there is complementarity and that there are no gaps with the overseas territories. I have been assured that there is neither complacency nor such gaps, but I am still not convinced that that is entirely the case. We need a lot more due diligence to ensure that the overseas territories are joined up and in lockstep with what we are trying to achieve because, as I have already said, some of the best-advised and slipperiest people in the world are really good at finding loopholes where they exist, or indeed creating them where they can.

There is also the point about the professional enablers: the public relations professionals; the lawyers; the accountants; and the others who have facilitated malfeasance. We need to see the professional bodies step up as well, but we also need the Government to expect much better of them. As I say, I now speak as a former solicitor, but I am still aware that there are gaps that can be exploited.

We also need to better finance the organs of Government that deal with economic crime. Good work is under way, and a lot of good people are working on this issue, but they need more support and more resources.

In closing, Companies House’s role should be that of an active, muscular regulator with teeth. However, it is not that at the moment. That is not a criticism of anybody in Companies House, but it is not doing what it needs to be able to do. It needs more resources and more powers to do it.

I hope that I have struck a consensual note in my contribution. Not much can be gained from a party political bidding war about which party is dirtiest or which party is the most in hock to dirty money. There is a common effort that we need to work upon here; it is in the interests of all our citizens to get this problem fixed. If the Minister here today is going to give these plans a bit more oomph than we have seen to date, he will have the SNP’s support in doing so.

14:28

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I think it is for the first time and it is lovely to see you in the Chair.

I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who is not currently present, and the other Committee members who have been here today: my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) and, of course, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), who knows Russia well and has been talking about these issues since before February 2022. I am sure the Committee will be as concerned as I am about the events of recent days. My thoughts and my condolences are with the people of both Poland and Ukraine at this immensely challenging time for both countries.

Labour is unwavering in its commitment to NATO, to Europe’s collective security and to providing long-term support to Ukraine and its people as they put everything into the defence of their country and the values of democracy, freedom, peace, security and self-determination. Labour also maintains that the bravery, courage and resolve of Ukrainians must be met with commensurate action, not only in our direct support to President Zelensky and his people but by eradicating Russian influence from our economy and our politics.

The Select Committee report states:

“The Integrated Review named Russia as the ‘most acute threat to our security.’”

It should not require a war on our continent for there finally to be the impetus to do something about illicit Russian finance, which has polluted our society and economy for decades. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) have worked consistently on the issue in the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax. I was a member of that group before I became a Front Bencher—or rather, in my time between being a Front Bencher and a Back Bencher.

Years of inaction have seen our capital dubbed “Londongrad”. My hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and for Putney (Fleur Anderson) were quite right to talk about the heavy influence that inaction has had on property prices for Londoners trying desperately to get on to the housing ladder, and the way in which prices have rushed up, particularly in the current climate. We are now reaping the impact of hundreds of billions of pounds having been laundered here in the UK, much of which will be being deployed to fund Putin’s war machine.

The Labour party has been pressing the Government for action for years and has raised the issue of illicit finance on the Floor of the House dozens of times. At our conference in 2021, prior to the invasion of Ukraine, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), then shadow Foreign Secretary, committed to a specific taskforce to look at the matter in depth.

Even now, it is fair to assert that the measures adopted in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 do not go far enough to tackle the problem. The report says that the steps taken by the Government since February

“are not preventative but rather constitute damage limitation”,

brought about by years of apathy. The report catalogues a litany of errors and shortfalls and the Government’s unwillingness to bring forward legislation and the culture change required, which could truly stem the flow of dirty money, deal with its enablers and provide sufficient resourcing to enforce any changes in the law.

This challenge did not originate in February 2022; the Opposition have been calling for action on it for years. We have known of Putin’s corrupt regime—and the risks that it has posed for our region and globally—since 2008, when he flagrantly broke international law to invade Georgia to retain control over the Caucasus, after brutally repressing the people of Chechnya. He did it again in Crimea in 2014, and later unleashed a brutal attack against the people of Syria. Who can forget the images of blown-out Idlib and how similar many of the bombed-out cities in the east of Ukraine appear now?

As well as Putin’s heinous war against Ukraine and his bid to wipe it from the map—the latest manifestation of almost two decades of relentless warmongering at the expense of civilians around the world—we are also aware of the threat posed by Russia as a state of sprawling kleptocracy. Oligarchs have exploited our economic set-up to expand their wealth, protect their assets and further the Kremlin’s nefarious intent. As the report highlights, we are still nowhere near where we need to be to remedy years of inaction in rowing back the tides of polluted Russian finance.

On the substance of the report, I am sure that the Minister will cite the 2022 Act, which Labour supported and welcomed earlier this year as a step in the right direction. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking tabled amendments and brought improvements to the Bill. The report rightly asserts that although the legislation makes welcome changes in some areas, it represents only a fraction of the changes needed to address the systemic vulnerability to Russia’s illicit finance. It was also lacking in reforms to Companies House, which are still not sorted, and it failed entirely to get to grips with cryptoassets to strengthen anti-money laundering regimes.

To inject a little bit of humour into this rather dry topic, I am sure Members will be interested in the Royal United Services Institute video in which an individual called “Mr Crooked Crook Crook” bowled up to Companies House to register his business and was welcomed with open arms. RUSI being that worried about a dodgy crook trying to register their company with Companies House highlights, with some humour, the issue that we face.

Even the limited progress that the legislation offers is hampered by the fact that the Government are not sufficiently resourcing the UK bodies that are tasked with enforcing the changes. The report finds that only 0.042% of GDP is spent on funding national-level economic crime and enforcement bodies. As a result, money laundering prosecutions have dropped by 35% over the past five years. We have talked about the issue regularly in the House, yet the opposite seems to have occurred in terms of the number of successful money laundering prosecutions.

The existing budget for economic crime law enforcement is £400 million, with only £100 million of that coming from the Treasury. That appears to be entirely inadequate. The National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and other bodies urgently need more funding to row back years of inactivity in this area, protect legitimate business and safeguard our national security.

We must also do far more to oppose those who seek to use their wealth to avoid scrutiny, skirt the law and remain beyond the reach of those who enforce it. The non-governmental organisation Spotlight on Corruption highlights the fact that money laundering prosecutions have dropped by 35% over the past five years. The UK is by far the most frequent country of origin for SLAPPs, with 31% of cases originating in the UK.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned the famous author Catherine Belton; I recommend that everybody goes and buys her book for Christmas. “Putin’s People” comes highly recommended by members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It considers the connections between kleptocracy, the UK and Londongrad, and the serious action that needs to be taken. Unfortunately, the judicial system was used to bully her publisher, as the hon. Member said. That is something we need to stop. It is a waste of court time and we must tighten things up and not allow such disgraceful acts to occur.

Although Labour welcomes changes brought in through the statutory instrument debated in October, which introduced a cap on the damages that oligarchs can win through protracted legal showdowns, we must go further. These oligarchs are concerned with only one thing: retaining their ostentatious wealth of questionable origin. They are litigious and resourceful, many will circumvent any rule to keep what they have and, in many cases, the Government do not have the basics in place to oppose them. Even the former Foreign Secretary—and briefly Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) slammed the Government’s record as a “decade of drift” on Russia.

Labour maintains that, in expanding our regime against Russia, the Government have been taking time that the people of Ukraine simply do not have. We have been sounding the alarm for years and will continue to do so. Today’s Financial Times reports that the Russian economy has contracted by 4%. It is an interesting percentage because I think it is about the same amount as ours has contracted since 2016. It shows that this is a very slow process and we need to get a wriggle on and get a move on. The report clearly states:

“Last-minute changes to last-minute legislation”

are not indicative of an effective or coherent policy, so we need to get moving. Labour will be very happy to hear of further amendments and statutory instruments that will push this further.

On 11 October 2022, the Government were asked in a parliamentary intervention what consideration had been given to sanctioning cryptocurrency mixers Tornado Cash and Blender. I do not expect the Minister to have the answer right now, but perhaps he could write to me with it and put a copy in the Library for members of the Foreign Affairs Committee to look at as well. Mixers such as these obfuscate the origins of transactions, making them virtually untraceable. Indeed, Tornado Cash has been used to launder more than $7 billion-worth of virtual currency since 2019. The US Treasury has sanctioned both; why have we not? Will the Government bring the UK into line with the US Treasury’s approach? Putin and his cronies are more than capable of exploiting such gaps in our regime, so why are we so slow and allowing this to persist?

Finally, I put on the record a question for the Minister. Will he assure us that the funding that has enabled an increase in full-time staffing numbers will not quietly be depleted following today’s announcements of tax increases for working people and a decrease in public spending? We desperately need excellent Treasury officials to keep on at this and must provide long-term funding for the critical units across both the FCDO and the Treasury. Prior to the war, some countries, such as the US, were well prepared to apply sanctions clearly and efficiently, but the UK was not. The Government have lagged behind and we must close the gaps in export bans to Russia regarding materials that have a potential for internal oppression. Some of that has now been dealt with by statutory instruments, but I would like to see a complete approach and not a colander effect that sees things slipping through.

I conclude by thanking the Select Committee for its challenging and crucial work on illicit finance. I look forward to further action in this regard and further statutory instruments, so that we can increase the pressure on the Kremlin to stop its vile activity in Ukraine.

14:39

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to respond to the debate on the Government’s behalf. I thank all Members for a constructive and useful debate.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for leading the debate. I acknowledge his long-standing interest and expertise in this field. We are grateful to the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee for producing this extremely useful report. I hope the Government response shows that we regard it as a serious and useful piece of work, and that the overall tone of the response shows that we treat it as a grave matter that requires our urgent attention.

I was grateful for the contributions from the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Stirling (Alyn Smith) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West). I should say that this topic lies in the portfolio of my departmental colleague, the noble Lord Ahmad; I am pleased to respond today on his behalf. I will try to cover off as many of the questions raised as possible, while giving some assurance that the Government’s response treats the issue extremely gravely and seriously.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green asked about our approach to tackling the use of cryptocurrencies. We recently introduced legislation to tackle their use when it comes to sanctions. I will write to her, or have the noble Lord Ahmad write to her, with an update on that statutory instrument, which sought to ensure that the application of sanctions keeps pace with the developments in financial markets, especially when it comes to the use of cryptocurrencies and platforms such as Blender.

A number of colleagues asked about the use of offshore shell companies to purchase property in London. We are tackling the use of offshore shell companies. We are reforming the role of Companies House and improving transparency over UK companies and properties in order to strengthen our business environment and support our national security, while delivering a more reliable companies register to underpin what is important business activity.

The reforms will bear down on the use of thousands of UK companies and other corporate structures as vehicles for facilitating international money laundering, corruption, terrorist financing and the illegal arms movement. The reforms will include the identity verification of people who manage or control companies and other UK-registered entities; greater powers for Companies House to query and challenge the information it receives; enhanced protection of personal information provided to Companies House to protect individuals from fraud and other harms; more effective investigation and enforcement powers for Companies House; and better cross-checking of data. Those are some of the reforms; that is not the entire list. We are aware of the issue and we are tightening up the relevant legislation.

A number of colleagues mentioned the use of SLAPPs and eloquently painted a picture of how they are hugely detrimental to the fabric of civil life. We are committed to protecting free speech and the rule of law in this country; they are cornerstones of our democracy. We are clear that SLAPPs are an abuse of the legal system. They involve the use of legal threats and litigation to silence journalists, campaigners and public bodies. That is deeply detrimental to a free and fair media and to the freedom of individuals. Addressing SLAPPs is a key part of the Government’s work to combat corruption and kleptocracy.

Colleagues will know that earlier this year the Government ran a call for evidence on SLAPPs reform. Our response, published on 20 July, outlined plans for a legislative definition of SLAPPs and an early dismissal process, supported by a formal cost-protection scheme to shield defendants and neutralise the chilling effect of high costs. I am sure colleagues will be reassured to hear that, and we will keep colleagues updated as the process develops.

A number of colleagues mentioned tier 1 investor visas, which they will know are now closed to new entrants. The Home Office lead on visas. We are currently finalising the historical review of the tier 1 provision. We expect the response to be published in the near future. We recognise the interest in the issue, and it is a complex piece of work. The Home Office is of course looking at how to operate a safe and sustainable approach while also attracting investment. We have to get the balance right, but we are clear that any future system must make sure that settlement must be earned and not bought, through applicants actively engaging in the UK economy and delivering job creation and other tangible economic benefits. I hope that information is useful.

[Catherine West]

Is the Minister aware that just two weeks ago the Home Secretary mentioned in the House of Commons that a number of visas had been sold? She was referring to the change in policy, but I note the difference in the language that the Minister has used today. Will he clarify what the Home Secretary meant when she said that certain visas had been sold?

[Leo Docherty]

Although I am grateful for the invitation to speak for the Home Secretary, I am going to pass on that opportunity. The hon. Member might seek clarification from the Home Secretary herself.

We are proud that we have sanctioned more than 1,200 individuals and 120 entities since the start of Putin’s outrageous invasion of Ukraine. That includes sanctioning Russia’s major banks, as well as more than 120 oligarchs with a combined net worth of more than £140 billion. This was made possible due to cross-Government planning months before the Russian invasion. Our planning proved pivotal to the swift designation of individuals and the introduction of new measures within days of the invasion. The legislation enabled the Foreign Secretary to sanction more individuals and entities at a greater pace.

We are taking robust action across Government, and with our international partners, to ensure that sanctions are effectively enforced. That is done through the Russian elites, proxies and oligarchs taskforce, which brings together international partners to ensure the effective enforcement of financial sanctions implemented against Kremlin-linked elites and entities.

[Neil Coyle]

Ten of the people sanctioned by the Government are Russian nationals who were recipients of tier 1 visas. Does the Minister have any sense of shame at the level of misuse of that system? When will the review of the 6,000 people who took tier 1 visas but were under investigation for being a national security risk conclude? He has not given us any information on that.

[Leo Docherty]

I repeat that the review will be published in due course. We recognise that there has been a problem, which is why it is under review. It will come forward in good time, I hope.

Let me turn to the resources committed to sanctions. As noted in the Government’s response to the report, we agree that the skillset of staff focused on sanctions has been central to our success in bringing those sanctions to bear. In recognition of the central role that sanctions continue to play as a key part of UK foreign policy, our Department has established a permanent sanctions directorate, in line with one of the report’s recommendations. As part of this new directorate, our Department has established a cadre of sanctions experts to build the enduring expertise that we need in the long term.

Additionally, I can confirm that the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation will have more than 100 staff by the end of this financial year, with current staffing having already more than double compared to last year. That will enable the OFSI to continue to lead the implementation of UK sanctions and ensure that assets in the UK are frozen.

On our approach to asset freezes as opposed to seizures, and getting that balance right—many colleagues have mentioned this and it has come up on the Floor of the House—we are exploring further options to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine using Russian-linked assets. That presents complex legal and policy challenges that officials are considering in detail with other Departments. We are looking at it seriously because we recognise that the scale of assets currently frozen is very significant. I am sure we would all be pleased if there was a route through good legal policy to ensure that that money could be used to make a positive difference.

On overall funding, combatting illicit finance requires the necessary resources to enforce our anti-money laundering laws and bring kleptocrats to justice, which is why the Government have developed a sustainable funding model that demonstrates our commitment to tackling economic crime. We are investing in the National Crime Agency and have increased its budget year on year since 2019. Since February, we have also created a new unit in the NCA, the combating kleptocracy cell, which is focused on targeting corrupt elites and their wealth in the UK. The combination of last year’s spending review settlement and private sector contributions through the new economic crime levy will provide funding of £400 million over the spending review period. That includes £63 million for Companies House to implement its transformation programme, which I already mentioned.

On the speed and scale of our response, we have taken robust action over the past decade. We published a landmark economic crime plan in 2019; we increased the number of investigations into corrupt elites; we established the National Economic Crime Centre; we passed the Criminal Finances Act 2017; and we became the first major economy in the world to implement a public register of beneficial ownership of domestic companies.

Earlier this year, the Government took swift action by passing the expedited Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. The Act is already helping us to crack down on dirty Russian money in the UK. The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which builds on that Act, is currently in Committee. The Bill will help us to bear down on kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists who abuse our open economy, thus strengthening the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive while driving dirty money out of the UK.

A number of colleagues, particularly the hon. Member for Stirling, mentioned the role of Crown dependencies and overseas territories. Of course, all Crown dependencies and overseas territories with financial centres are committed to meeting international standards on illicit finance, tax transparency and anti-money laundering, including those set by the OECD and the Financial Action Task Force. All Crown dependencies and inhabited overseas territories have committed to introducing publicly accessible registers of company beneficial ownership. That is a major shift that puts them ahead of most jurisdictions.

I am pleased that significant progress has been made by several of the jurisdictions, including Gibraltar, which I visited recently. Gibraltar’s register is already operational. The Cayman Islands is working at pace and is completing a consultation on the details of its register. The British Virgin Islands also recently passed legislation that will enable the framework for regulations to be made for a register, in preparation for 2023. Smaller overseas territories, such as Montserrat and Anguilla, are working with the FCDO to update their systems to enable public access. We have funded Open Ownership, a specialist NGO, to provide technical assistance to each overseas territory.

I reiterate our gratitude to the Foreign Affairs Committee for its detailed and useful report. We hope that the Government’s response will assure colleagues that we are gripping the issue at the policy and technical levels. We also hope that it sends the message that London and the UK are no place for dirty Russian money and that our legal framework and institutional strength will deter anyone who thinks that is not true. I also hope it will provide reassurance to our friends and allies, especially Ukraine. We are determined to ensure that we are able to help Ukraine to rebuild its country and defend its sovereignty against outrageous Russian aggression, which all too often has been connected to Kremlin-linked international assets. I hope the Government’s response reassures people that we are getting after it.

14:53

[Bob Seely]

I thank everyone for taking part in the debate and I thank you, Mr Efford, for chairing.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Second Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, The cost of complacency: illicit finance and the war in Ukraine, HC 168, and the Government response, HC 688.

14:54

Sitting suspended.

Backbench Business

Persecution of Christians

Thursday 17th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dame Maria Miller in the Chair]

15:00

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered persecution of Christians and freedom of religion or belief.

I am pleased to make a contribution in Westminster Hall any time, but I am especially pleased to speak on this matter today. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and I, with the support of other Members, approached the Backbench Business Committee to ask for a debate around this time, because we wanted it to tie in with Red Wednesday, which is next Wednesday. We were pleased to get the debate, and I am pleased to see right hon. and hon. Members here to contribute to it.

I start by declaring an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. In that capacity, I regularly voice, as other Members do in and outside the Chamber, the plight of Christians, those of other faiths and those of no faith who suffer on the grounds of their faith or belief. In my work with the APPG, I am regularly edified and encouraged by seeing all faiths and beliefs work together to advance FORB issues. Whether it is Christians advocating for humanists, humanists advocating for Muslims, or Muslims advocating for Sikhs, cross-belief support is a remarkable driver of change and solidarity in the face of persecution. I believe that human rights and religious belief walk hand in hand—they are married.

However, this debate is specifically about persecution of Christians. We should not shy away from the plight of persecuted Christians. I never will, and others in the Chamber never will. Against a backdrop of deteriorating conditions for many faiths and beliefs, we must not and will not dilute the grave challenges Christians face worldwide. In 2015, the largest religious group was those of a Christian faith, who numbered 2.3 billion, or 31% of the global population. In 2022, 360 million Christians experienced high levels of persecution and discrimination, an increase of some 20 million on 2021. In 2019, religious groups—especially Christians—were persecuted in 190 out of 198 countries.

We often look at stats and just take note of them, but the stats prove the issue. That is why this debate is so important. My remarks and those by others today will show that Christians face extreme levels of violent attacks in places such as Mozambique, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, Mali, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, China, Russia, India and North Korea. I could name another 40; those are just 10 out of the more than 50 countries where Christians suffer for their faith today. The scale of oppression means that it is necessary to focus on one group in particular. That is why I gave the stats that I gave, and that is why the debate is so titled. By advocating freedom of religion for Christians, I can be safe in the knowledge that freedom of religion or belief for all will improve. I am a believer in that, Dame Maria; I believe that expressing myself in this debate on behalf of Christians will ensure that those of other beliefs and faiths have the very same rights.

This debate is especially pertinent because next Wednesday, 23 November, is Red Wednesday. That is a Christian initiative, spearheaded by Aid to the Church in Need, to remember our Christian brothers and sisters around the world who are persecuted for their faith. Buildings will be lit up red—the colour of martyrdom, which illustrates the blood of saints killed across the world. Next Wednesday, I hope that more and more people will be made aware of the persecution of Christians.

Yesterday, Aid to the Church in Need launched its latest report, entitled “Persecuted and Forgotten?” I wish I could have attended that event, but the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) brought me a copy of the report during the Westminster Hall debate on Ethiopia and Tigray. The report highlights cases of Christians persecuted due to their faith over the last three years, and it makes for harrowing reading. Some of the contributions to that debate referred to cases in the report, which are harrowing. I always find it incredibly hard to listen to contributions in the Chamber recounting personal stories of what happens to men, women and children because of their faith.

In 75% of the countries surveyed, oppression or persecution of Christians has increased in recent years. Similarly, the Open Doors “World Watch List” report finds year after year that the persecution of Christians is getting worse, not better—it never seems to get better. Last year, 5,898 Christians were murdered for their faith, and thousands more were maimed or injured, or had their places of worship damaged or destroyed. In the age of technological, social and medical advancements, we should ask ourselves why rights for Christians are not advancing. We are here today to make that point and illustrate it in an evidential way with stories.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has set out the statistics about how many Christians have been persecuted for their faith. Does he agree that, as a Christian country with an established Church, we need to do more to protect Christians in the UK and across the world, and use our global influence, especially in the Commonwealth, to help Christians and people of all faiths so that no one has to die in such horrific ways?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman is here to participate in the debate. He and I hold similar Christian views and faith.

My party and I first held a debate on the persecution of Christians back in, I think, 2012. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and the hon. Member for Congleton were both there, and there was consensus on both sides of the Chamber. That is when debates on Christianity as a persecuted faith started, and we have continued to hold them. I think they have had a key role.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. I spoke to him before the debate and I have great expectations of him, because I know he understands the issue. The hon. Member for Congleton and I were both saying yesterday that we have high expectations of him, and I am sure we will not be disappointed.

Complacency about the ever-worsening conditions for Christians around the world must stop now. The “Persecuted and Forgotten?” report found that the situation for Christians has worsened in all the countries in Africa that were reviewed: Mali, Sudan, Eritrea, Nigeria, Ethiopia and Mozambique. The atrocious conditions are evidenced by a sharp increase in genocidal violence. I use that word on purpose, because it illustrates exactly what is happening: it is genocidal violence from militant non-state actors, including jihadists. It is very clear to me that we need to address this issue.

Over the past two years, I and many other hon. Members have repeatedly highlighted how Christian persecution has only intensified since covid-19. According to the Institute of Development Studies:

“In a significant amount of the nations which have encountered outbreaks of the novel coronavirus, politicians and opinion leaders have openly condemned religious minority populations under the guise of epidemiological containment”.

In other words, it is saying that those of the Christian faith are the subject, in this case, of

“hateful messages on social media, public speeches and official policies.”

One would have hoped that such a diminished standard of treatment of religious minorities during covid-19 would have abated by now, but, disappointingly, that does not seem to have happened. The deteriorating conditions accelerated by the pandemic have not been fleeting or vaccinated away. Instead, the pandemic facilitated the creeping curtailment of Christians’ exercise of their faith. That is now the new normal, with no sign of improvement. That has to be addressed across the world.

There are so many countries I could touch on to exhibit the ever-worsening conditions for Christians around the world, but two in particular stand out to me. I have visited both. I want to speak about Nigeria, which I visited in May 2022, and Pakistan, which I visited in 2018. I hope to go back to Pakistan in February next year, if I am spared until that time. Why do I choose those two countries when so many others are also culprits? It is partly for the sheer scale of their abuses of Christians and other religious groups, but it is also because they are the two largest recipients of UK aid. I want to tie those stories together. I am all for UK aid—I am very supportive of it—but I think there has to be an undertaking from Nigeria and Pakistan to address the issues of Christian persecution, discrimination and abuse.

It is my hope that the UK can make the most difference to those countries, and it has a great responsibility to do so. When this country’s taxpayers are contributing to aid going to countries that allow the perpetrators of persecution to escape with immunity, we must ask ourselves whether we are confident that we are not complicit in any abuses taking place. We need to use the aid that we give to those and other countries as an instrument to change what is happening.

To that end, this Government must continue to seek answers about where their aid is going, who it is reaching, and whether religious groups in need are benefiting from that assistance. I ask the question of others on many occasions. Like others, I hear the stories of religious groups not getting the assistance they should when it comes to humanitarian aid and direct UK aid to those countries. Without significant transparency about the aid that is distributed, we cannot be sure that it is not simply fuelling the oppression of Christians. That is a big statement to make, but it is how we feel. Others will illustrate that clearly.

Gender-specific religious-based persecution is a serious problem in Pakistan, with some reports listing it as one of the worst offenders worldwide. When we were in Pakistan back in 2018, we had discussions with the high commissioner about the blasphemy law, which I will comment on later. We chose to adopt a certain attitude on that visit to Pakistan, because we thought that if we condemned the blasphemy law outright, we probably would not get the opportunity to speak to the judges we needed to speak to. Instead, we illustrated to them evidentially that—and it is true—accusations of blasphemy are often malicious, vindictive and untrue. That is what happened in the case of Asia Bibi. Two of the three judges we met agreed; they were of the opinion that it was malicious, vindictive and dishonest, and they said that Asia Bibi would be released. There was an appeal and she was released; she now lives in Canada with her family. But there are other Asia Bibis in Pakistan, and it is very clear from ongoing cases that blasphemy laws are being used in a vindictive fashion.

Aid to the Church in Need’s “Hear Her Cries” report recorded that in the Sindh province in 2018 there were more than 1,000 cases of Christian or Hindu women suffering forced conversion—almost three a day. More often than not, they are just young girls. Women also suffer so-called forced marriage, which is not marriage at all—not as you, Dame Maria, and I would see marriage. It is the rape of non-Muslim women, who are often under age, too.

One high-profile case is that of Maira Shahbaz. I am pretty sure that the right hon. Member for Gainsborough will speak about this, too. In 2020, aged just 14, she was abducted, raped, and forced to marry her abductor and convert. Her birth certificate showed that she was under age, but Lahore High Court judged her to be legally wed, even though the law of the land said that that was impossible. Since Maira escaped from her captor, she has been forced to stay in hiding. Despite repeated requests that the Home Office in this country grant her asylum, she is still waiting. I know that that is not the responsibility of this Minister, but I make a plea, as others will, for Maira Shahbaz to have her asylum request processed so that she can settle in this country, with the freedom that she deserves to have. Hers is a worthy asylum case and a very clear one, given the violence and the loss of freedom that she has suffered.

Sadly, gender-specific persecution is not unique to Pakistan. According to gender-specific research released last year, there was a 31% increase in violence, be that sexual, physical or psychological, against Christian women and girls compared with the previous year. The latter two forms of violence saw the biggest increase in incidents. According to Open Doors:

“Sexual violence can be overt, such as Christian women being abducted by Boko Haram and used as sex slaves, or it can be covert, under the guise of forced marriage, for example. Given the honour culture of many societies, sexual violence is often used to intentionally shame and stigmatise victims as well as their families and communities.”

The impact on all the families is quite large and quite significant.

Moreover, in honour/shame cultures, such as those found in India, many of the methods used to persecute Christian women and girls result in stigma—indeed, that is often a key reason behind the attacks. For example, rape victims are often viewed by society as sexually impure, making them vulnerable to rejection and limiting their prospects. This only serves to perpetuate a cycle of violence against Christians, making it increasingly taboo to be a follower of Christ in this world, which is something that I and many in this Chamber adhere to.

In Pakistan, gender-specific persecution is not the only challenge that Christians face. The ever present threat of allegations under blasphemy law and subsequent imprisonment or death has been used as a weapon against the Christians in Pakistan. Pakistan’s infamous blasphemy laws continue to be leveraged to accuse Christians and other non-Muslims of insulting the Prophet Mohammed or the Koran. Those false accusations are slurs, but they are also malicious, vindictive and dishonest, and they are often made in order to target Christians after a non-related dispute. Many of the cases that I have been aware of have had something to do with land disputes, property disputes, or fallouts. Even a false accusation can lead to mob violence. Once again, such allegations can lead to Christians living in hiding for years afterwards—as Maira Shahbaz is—with little hope of escape, and closed avenues of asylum in the UK. Those avenues of asylum should be open and available to those who have been persecuted and discriminated against because of their faith.

I visited Nigeria in May, and I am very sad to say that the situation in Nigeria has not changed at all. We had hoped that it would. We had some indications from Government officials that things were advancing. But the reality is very different. In Nigeria, abductions, particularly of women and girls, are rife. Many of us will know—indeed, we will all know—of the kidnapping of the Chibok schoolgirls in 2014. It made headlines when 276 mostly Christian girls were abducted by Boko Haram from their school. What has not made the headlines is the reality of that. Eight years later, more than 100 of those girls are still missing. How hard that must be on their mums, dads, brothers, sisters and all the family members who want to know what has happened to their sisters and daughters.

Regrettably, there are many cases of similar, albeit smaller-scale, abductions, with girls still missing after years. We think of the wee lady Leah Sharibu as well. She has been missing for four years. We had hoped that something might come out of our visit in May in relation to Leah Sharibu, but it has not been forthcoming as of this moment. As long as these girls remain missing, we must ask our Government—my Government—what they are doing to tackle impunity in Nigeria, and how they can be sure that the aid given to Nigeria does not fall into the wrong hands.

I and others have great concerns that Nigeria is the cockpit of Africa and that if it goes wrong in Nigeria, with its massive population, it can go very wrong for the rest of Africa. I know that is something the Minister takes particular interest in, and I am sure that he will give us an update in his response.

In May, earlier this year, I visited Nigeria along with other members of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief. A main takeaway was that young people were ripe for radicalisation, facilitated largely by Government corruption and a culture of impunity. If more is not done to stem the spread of jihad, we will, without a doubt, witness genocide in Nigeria.

Earlier, I mentioned that some 5,898 Christians were killed last year, for simply believing that Jesus is their Lord. I find that almost incomprehensible. Of those, 4,650 were in Nigeria. That gives us an idea of the scale of the difficulties in Nigeria; that is why my focus has been on Pakistan and Nigeria. Yet again, that figure means that more Christians were murdered in Nigeria for following Jesus than in the rest of the world combined. That is a big stat to take in.

Yesterday, Bishop Jude, from Ondo State in Nigeria, visited Parliament. He is the bishop in the diocese where earlier this year, on Pentecost Sunday—a mere seven days after we visited the area—Catholics were massacred during a church service at St Francis church. Bishop Jude described how young children were shot through the head by Islamists. The amount of pain and suffering that such attacks inflict upon Nigeria’s population is unimaginable, and yet their faith still remains. It is an incredible test of faith, but it also tells of the faith they have.

What of the international community’s response? In November 2021, the US removed Nigeria from its list of countries of particular concern, and it has still yet to redesignate it as such. I ask that the Minister has discussions with the United States about reinstating Nigeria on that list, where it should be. The US of all countries should be doing that. The reasons for removing the designation remain somewhat unclear, especially in the light of such severe violations of freedom of religion or belief.

Although this Government condemned the attack, they also expressed the view in response to a written question on the matter that:

“The root causes of violence are complex, and in the case of intercommunal violence, frequently relate to competition over resources, historical grievances and criminality.”

I do not deny for a second that this is a complex issue or that there is a backdrop of compounding difficulties to the insecurity in Nigeria, but we must stop kidding ourselves that competition over resources, commonly attributed to climate change, is a greater cause of such violence and killings than pure unabated, violent hatred of Christians. The Islamic extremists in Nigeria could have massacred people in the street or in a Government building, but they did not. Instead, they shot, killed and maimed Christians, who were specifically targeted. The distinctly religious-based nature of the conflict should not be dismissed. Scarce resources do not shoot worshippers through the head; extremists do.

The rise of extremism is not unique to Nigeria. According to the latest report from Aid to the Church in Need, in June 2021, fighters belonging to Islamic State in the Greater Sahara executed five Christian civilians seized at a roadblock between Gao, Mali and Niamey, Niger. In Mozambique, al-Shabaab stepped up its terror campaign, killing Christians, attacking Christian villages and burning down churches. The group is affiliated to Daesh, which claimed responsibility for the March 2021 attack on Palma in north-east Mozambique. All the while, we as the west seem to do very little in response.

I know the Government are committed to freedom of religion and belief, but we need to perhaps take a more focused approach in relation to aid on where the difficulties are and what we can do to help. What can we do to stem the flow of violence, persecution, oppression and even genocide against Christians? I have some suggestions for the Minister, for His Majesty’s Government—for my Government. First, the FCDO must continue to affirm FORB issues as a priority concern within its human rights agenda, maintain its focus on gender and sexual violence in conflict and its interplay with FORB issues. In short, a mainstreaming of FORB in the FCDO’s approach to other nations would be welcome.

In connection with that, asylum seekers who are fleeing due to being persecuted for their religion or belief must be prioritised, and that is critically important. If that is done, the delayed acceptance of religious minorities from Afghanistan into the resettlement scheme would never be repeated. There are some people in a hotel in North Down who have been there since they were repatriated from Afghanistan. I welcome the scheme—I really do—but they are still there. There needs to be a system where people can get out. They want to work, they want to be settled and have things getting back to some normality as much as possible. Similarly, utmost efforts should be made to enable religious minorities to make asylum applications. Often they face more barriers than others in this process.

The work of the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, currently the hon. Member for Congleton, must be adequately resourced and fully integrated into the FCDO’s work. That is another ask through this debate. I know that she will not ask for it, but I will ask for it for her, because I think it is the right thing to do. Amplifying the concerns of Christians worldwide is all well and good, but we need to be sure that the FCDO is listening and taking action in response. If that work was incorporated within the FCDO, that would be a massive positive step.

I also suggest, as developed in a debate only a few weeks ago, that His Majesty’s Government do more to encourage the abolishment of the death penalty or life sentences for the charges of blasphemy. That is one small change that could make a tangible difference for so many Christians in multiple countries. Encouraging states to ensure the rule of law and not tyranny by sharia courts is fundamental to that aim. It is wholly unacceptable for a state to constitutionally have no state religion and yet have sharia law prevail among its court system, as it does in Nigeria and in other countries.

Finally, returning to Pakistan and Nigeria, I suggest that foreign and development aid be tied to improving FORB conditions. I have said it before in other debates, but saying that again does not lessen the request. It is a different Minister now, and I am always keen to seek the support and the response of the Minister in post. That proposal would not impact on emergency humanitarian aid. We are not saying that aid should not happen; we are saying it needs to be done to improve FORB conditions across the world. It would not impact on the millions of pounds spent by this Government on general development either. Until our Government can be absolutely certain that the recipients of aid are doing all they can to end the persecution, be it state or non-state actors, we should not be complacent about taxpayers’ money going to these countries.

I want to end on a positive note—this is my last word for the moment. In the Gospel of Matthew, it says:

“Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

If we cannot deliver justice for the oppressed in this life, may we be sure in the knowledge that justice will be theirs in the second? I believe we have a duty, as representatives in this House and as Christians ourselves, to speak up for our brothers and sisters across the world. We ask our Government and Minister—my Government and Minister—to respond in a positive fashion.

15:28

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister to his place, particularly knowing as I do his strong personal commitment to humanitarian aid provision over many years, not least from his time as Secretary of State for International Development, when I was privileged to serve on the International Development Committee, but also from our many summer recesses of volunteering when we both enjoyed the Umubano projects in Rwanda and Burundi. I know his commitment is real, and I look forward to working with him equally constructively in my role as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. It is very much with a constructive approach that I look at today’s debate.

My mandate, as stated on the Foreign Office website, is threefold: to bring together UK efforts to promote freedom of religion or belief; to work with the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance to raise awareness of cases of persecuted individuals; and to support the implementation of the Bishop of Truro’s recommendations, which support not just Christians persecuted for their faith, but freedom of religion or belief for all.

It is always with mixed sentiments that I speak at the annual Red Wednesday debate on the persecution of Christians. It is a privilege to thank the dedicated non-governmental organisations that support those who are suffering simply on account of what they believe. However, year on year, global persecution is rising across faiths and beliefs, and Christians are no exception, as we have heard. The report published yesterday by Aid to the Church in Need, “Persecuted and Forgotten?”, highlights the increase in persecution and notes that Christians are the most widely persecuted faith group in the world.

It is encouraging, however, that Governments across the world increasingly recognise the importance of engaging with freedom of religion or belief as a means of promoting world stability and security, and that across the world, more and more people and organisations are working together. Newly appointed envoys from different countries, ambassadors for freedom of religion or belief, academics, experts, NGOs, countries, people at the UN and the special rapporteur are working collaboratively together globally.

For example, this month the countries in the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance are campaigning against blasphemy laws—some involve the death penalty—which penalise people simply for practising their faith. We have timed that to reinforce work at the UN General Assembly on a global moratorium on the death penalty. It is also encouraging that the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, which I have the privilege of chairing this year, has grown to 42 countries. It started formally only in spring 2020, with a handful of countries, and now countries are joining almost every other month. Our collective voice is far louder than each individual voice alone.

It is increasingly recognised that religious differences are the cause of much violence and terror across the world, and in turn of insecurity and poverty. I hope that the Minister, who is new to his post, will also recognise that fact, not least with regard to what is happening in Nigeria today. We must engage with that, including in decisions on humanitarian aid spend.

This week, Bishop Jude Arogundade is visiting the UK from Owo in Nigeria. It was at the church in his diocese, St Francis Xavier, where 40 were killed on Pentecost Sunday. The youngest was two years old. Yesterday, he described for us the scene of carnage that met him as he entered his church. Tragically, however, that was not an isolated incident. Right across many states in Nigeria today, Fulani jihadists—Islamic extremists —are kidnapping, ransoming and killing clergy, abducting school students, forcibly converting, raping and marrying Christian girls, seizing land and obliterating villages. They are killing whole communities and then renaming their land. They are dispossessing thousands, who flee to live in informal camps for internally displaced people. Those are not camps with UN support; they are often camps supported by NGOs. Hunger, thirst, fear and lack of shelter are rife there. I heard just this week of how two teenage boys who were hungry risked leaving the IDP camp to try to fish for food. Their bodies were returned; their heads had been split open like melons with machetes.

Time precludes me from providing more accounts of the multiple atrocities happening in Nigeria. I will send the Minister documentation that I have received for this debate, including from Dr Richard Ikiebe of the Pan-Atlantic University, ACN, Baroness Cox, Open Doors and the director of advocacy at Open Doors, Dr David Landrum, who visited just two weeks ago. He tells me that atrocities are happening not just daily but hourly. That cannot just be explained by climate change and a fight over grazing land. As Dr Landrum told me, it is happening now in the forests and the jungles. The kidnapping of the Chibok schoolgirls in 2014 had nothing to do with the fight over land, and nor did the abduction, ransoming or disappearance of thousands of school children, such as Leah Sharibu. Bishop Jude told us:

“The massacre at St Francis Catholic Church Owo has nothing to do with climate change.”

We need to recognise—I implore the Minister to do so today—that religious differences have everything to do with this violence and, indeed, are the key root cause of the atrocities occurring in so many states across Nigeria. Aid to the Church in Need states:

“In Africa the state of Christians has worsened in all countries reviewed amid a sharp rise in genocidal violence from militant non-state actors, including Jihadists.”

Will the Minister meet me and others to discuss how we can address that? Addressing religious differences now needs to be a priority in our decision making. The bilateral official development assistance spend in Nigeria in 2021-22 was more than £100 million.

Other Governments are recognising the importance of promoting religious cohesion and putting real funds behind their commitment. That is why I say that I want to be constructive in making some suggestions. The Netherlands, for example, is funding projects in Nigeria’s Kaduna and Plateau states, whereby young Christians and Muslims have worked collaboratively on projects such as one to get more electricity into their communities—and it has worked. Not only has that joint working promoted understanding and cohesion, but the women and young people who use sewing machines to produce clothes for their livelihoods can now work longer hours because of the available electricity. That is just one of many projects where joint working across religious communities can build trust.

How can the UK engage in such a way? That is vital, because Nigeria is a huge country with more than 200 million people. As a result of the violence there, many young people feel increasingly disengaged and futureless. Time and again, I have warned that if the UK—Bishop Jude tells me that our voice still commands huge respect in Nigeria; indeed, more than that of any other country—does not engage, millions of young people who feel they have no future in Nigeria will seek to travel here. The devastating impact of that flood of potentially millions of migrants will overwhelm the countries in between, such as Niger. That point cannot be overstated, and it was mentioned to me strongly by a Member of Parliament from Niger when I met him here last month.

Providing better understanding between faith and belief groups, and between young people in a young country, as Nigeria is, is just as critical as providing education for them. Projects similar to the one I described involving young people and engaging them on FORB have been funded in other countries in many parts of the world. There are FORB-related projects in Somalia, the Philippines, South Sudan, Kenya and Mali. One project I heard of, which I understand is proving successful, is in the Central African Republic, bringing youth and religious leaders together to reduce hate speech in the digital sphere. Will the Minister discuss with me how the UK can play its part in supporting similar projects? Addressing the importance of freedom of religion or belief is vital today if we are to maintain our leadership role in tackling poverty and improving security across the world.

We cannot start too young. The alliance that I chair is taking forward a project from the London ministerial conference to produce materials for primary schools to help teachers to educate the very youngest children that it is just as important not to discriminate against someone on account of their beliefs as it is if they are disabled. I am delighted that one of the schools piloting this project—it was recently welcomed with interest by the Minister with responsibility for schools, the Minister of State, Department for Education, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb)—is in my own constituency. Our alliance’s aim is to roll out these teaching materials, once they have been piloted, across the 42 countries in our alliance, an idea initiated by one of vice-chairs of the alliance, ambassador Robert Řehák of the Czech Republic. We cannot start too young to help people across the world to understand how critical it is to live peaceably with others of different beliefs, particularly as there is so much friction leading to violence in the world today.

If the Minister is still unpersuaded by reports from NGOs that the root cause of the current horrendous conflict in Nigeria is not climate change but attacks by religious extremists who are intent on genocidal destruction, would he perhaps support an impartial evaluation of what is currently going on in Nigeria and press for a UN commission of inquiry on Nigeria? Will he consider how addressing such freedom of religion or belief issues can be included more strongly in the wording of the revised integrated review, which was announced by the Chancellor today?

The current integrated review commits as a priority action:

“To promote freedom of religion or belief…overseas, taking forward the recommendations of the Bishop of Truro’s 2019 independent review and raising awareness of cases of particular concern - including through collaboration with the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance. In 2022, we will host an international ministerial conference to agree steps to advance FoRB for all.”

The ministerial conference was held in London in July. No fewer than 88 countries sent official delegates, with over 1,000 delegates attending from over 100 countries in total. The Truro review is a manifesto commitment and there are still outstanding elements to be fulfilled. I hope that the Minister will concur with me—indeed, it is in accordance with the Prime Minister’s determination to address outstanding manifesto commitments—that work on the Truro review should be completed. It is about promoting not just freedom of religion for Christians, but freedom of religion or belief for all.

As required under the Truro review, an independent review of progress of the Truro work was carried out this year, commissioned by the FCDO. That independent review was led by three freedom of religion or belief experts, including the UN special rapporteur on FoRB, and it was published in April. Its recommendations were fully accepted by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), in a written statement, and it highlighted that there is outstanding Truro work to be done. It included as a key recommendation the production of a comprehensive operational action plan to aid

“a more integrated policy approach to mainstreaming FoRB”

in the FCDO, and

“informing multilateral and bilateral level engagement.”

That is much needed. The experts highlighted that work on FORB in the FCDO would benefit from

“more connectivity amongst those in the FCDO pursuing FoRB activities”.

I agree with that. It is now well over six months since that expert review was completed, and action on the comprehensive operational action plan needs to be taken forward. A lack of joined-up working within the FCDO on FORB means that resources are not being used as efficiently as they could be, and that needs to change.

I would welcome an opportunity to discuss this matter with the Minister, but that is not to disparage the strong commitment to FORB of our parliamentary colleague, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. It is about making the best use of FCDO resources in support of our mutual roles, and indeed in support of the Minister who is here today.

You will be pleased to hear, Dame Maria, that I will be concluding shortly. We also need to be bolder and better at raising awareness of specific cases of concern. The whole point of advancing freedom of religion or belief is to make lives better. Where individuals are suffering and there is an opportunity for us to make their lives better, we should, in my view, be braver. Of course, this complies with my own mandate, which I touched on at the start of my speech.

We should be braver in raising particular cases of concern, so I will close by highlighting two. In the debate on this topic two years ago, I highlighted the case of Maira Shahbaz. Will the Minister look at how the UK can give safe haven to that poor girl? Two years on, she remains in hiding and in fear of oppressors, and she is living in one room with a sink. Will the Minister meet me to discuss not only her case, but the case of Sawan Masih, who is also from Pakistan? That case, which the hon. Member for Strangford has mentioned previously, involves a man who lives in hiding with his family because he fears being killed by the mob, having been acquitted by the court after being sentenced to death for blasphemy. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

Order. I plan to move to the Front-Bench winding-up speeches at 3.58 pm, so if the final two speakers split the remaining time between them, we will get both of you in. You have about five or six minutes each.

15:45

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

I was trying to do the maths in my head, Dame Maria, so you have helped me out. I congratulate the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate, which is becoming something of an annual tie-in with the Red Wednesday commemorations. That is extremely fitting and a real tribute to their work. It is so important to so many of our constituents that we speak up for people who are being denied their right to freedom of religion or belief all around the world, regardless of whether they are Christian, are practising any other belief, or are of no belief.

As the title of the debate suggests, we are focusing on Christians. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, Christians remain one of the most persecuted—in fact, probably the most persecuted and discriminated against—religious group in the world. Perhaps that is to some extent because Christians remain the largest community group in the world, but the statistics demonstrate the significance of their persecution. It is worth bearing in mind, though, that the vast majority of human beings in the world adhere to some kind of religion and profess a belief in a creator god. The majority of them believe in the God revealed to the patriarch Abraham, and most believe in the same God revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. On a global scale, religion is therefore not a minority sport, and neither is Christianity.

I pay tribute to organisations, such as Open Doors, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Aid to the Church in Need, that do so much work to draw attention to these issues. Red Wednesday is a way for everybody to become more aware of the challenges faced by Christians and others who are persecuted for their religious beliefs.

I will briefly echo some of what has been said about specific countries. Nigeria is seventh on the Open Doors 2022 world watch list of the 50 countries where it is most difficult to live as a Christian, but the statistics show that if it were only measuring violence, Nigeria would be at the top of the list, and we have heard some very powerful and, frankly, horrific testimony from the hon. Members for Strangford and for Congleton. The call to bring to justice those responsible for genocidal attacks, such as the Pentecost Sunday 2022 massacre in Nigeria, is the focus of Aid to the Church in Need’s petition this year, and I hope that there are things the Government can do and that they will listen to the calls that have been made—for example, to address the question of designating Nigeria as a country of concern.

The Christian community in Iran is not always spoken of, but it is a very real and persecuted minority. The Open Doors world watch list says:

“It is risky for Christians, especially converts, to express their faith publicly (such as in blogs or on social media) since the internet is monitored and this can be used as evidence prior to an arrest.”

When the Prime Minister gave his statement on the G20 earlier today, I asked him what support the UK, the G20 and the global community more widely are offering to everyone in Iran who is now campaigning for democracy and freedom. Perhaps the Minister can address some of that as well.

Then there is the situation in China, where members of many religious minorities—not least the Uyghur Muslims—face persecution on a daily basis, but I want to draw particular attention to the situation of Cardinal Joseph Zen, who is one of Asia’s highest-ranking Catholic clerics. In May, he and fellow campaigners were arrested in Hong Kong for what the Government said was collusion with foreign forces, because they were trustees of a humanitarian relief fund. Together with the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), several of us raised our concerns with the Government in early-day motion 36 on 12 May, in which we agreed with Human Rights Watch’s comments that the arrest of the 90-year-old Cardinal for peaceful activities was a shocking new low for the Hong Kong Administration, and that it illustrates the city’s freefall in human rights over the past couple of years.

The Government must continue to work to tackle those issues in different countries around the world, as they have committed to. They also have to ensure that they are doing what they can on a domestic level to protect freedom of religion and belief and promote tolerance at home. In my part of world, Glasgow and the west of Scotland, we are not immune to religious intolerance. Sectarianism is still a real challenge. The root of it is, ironically, a divide between different Christian denominations; the golden rule of that religion is to “love one another as you love yourself”.

I want to pay tribute to the late Archbishop Mario Conti, the emeritus Archbishop of Glasgow, because among his many achievements was a renewed dedication to ecumenical and interfaith dialogue. Just yesterday, the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland signed the St Margaret declaration, a statement of ecumenical friendship. It was signed by the moderator of the Church of Scotland and the Archbishop of Edinburgh in the presence of the Princess Royal at Dunfermline Abbey. That is a very good example of what is possible from dialogue and the search for common ground. Hopefully it is the kind of thing that elsewhere in the world can learn from.

Many people who come to the United Kingdom seeking asylum do so because of religious persecution, whether they are Christian or otherwise. The language demonising people arriving on these shores in small boats in extremely unhelpful, and not a way to promote tolerance. The Government need to bear that in mind. I am still aware of ongoing challenges for very simple things, such as access to visas for supply ministers and religious leaders when they want to come to the United Kingdom in the summer to supply for Christian parishes or other faith communities. None of that necessarily speaks to a welcoming attitude.

The Government have to take all of that into account, and, if they are going to continue to cut the aid budget, they have to explain how they are going to make that work smarter and harder, so that progress can be continued in those areas, particularly towards the Truro report recommendations, as the hon. Member for Congleton said. She has been the Prime Minister’s envoy under three Prime Ministers, which shows how seriously she takes her role. We all support her in taking that role seriously, and I hope the Government will continue to do so too.

15:52

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I hope these debates make some difference. I think I have spoken in all of them over the years, and the situation just seems to get worse and worse, but I suppose we cannot keep silent. The situation in Nigeria that we have heard so much about is truly appalling. Within the period we have been talking about, perhaps 7,000 Christians have been murdered. We keep referring to it, and I suppose there is a degree of hopelessness about what we can do, but should we feel hopeless? We have a Minister here who has spent a lifetime committed to helping people in the developing world. We do have influence because of our very large aid budget. I sometimes wonder whether we are using that influence to the greatest effect, particularly with countries such as Nigeria.

There is a suspicion that the Nigerian authorities are not as zealous as they should be in cracking down on this violence, which is little less than genocide. There is very little publicity about the loss of black lives in Africa, but black lives matter everywhere. They do not just matter in the west; as I have said before, they matter equally in Africa. When people are being murdered simply for their faith, we should call that out, and our Government should call it out in their relations with Nigeria. I am sure the Minister will say that we do that, but we must use our influence.

There are a couple of new countries that we have not talked about before where things are getting very difficult. For instance, in Nicaragua, President Daniel Ortega’s Sandinista National Liberation Front is increasingly cracking down on civil society and local churches. Bishop Declan Lang commented:

“Over recent years the people of Nicaragua have endured deepening repression and violations of human dignity. Many have been unjustly imprisoned…or killed for defending their basic rights. Others have been forced to flee… Among them, bishops, priests, seminarians.”

Another country we have not dealt with much in these debates in the past is Myanmar, where civil society is under threat. Cardinal Maung Bo, the Archbishop of Yangon, is pleading for protection from violence by military junta troops. In November 2021, 200 troops invaded the Christ the King Cathedral in Loikaw and evicted health workers. The bishops of Myanmar have appealed for humanitarian corridors and sanctuary for their places of worship.

In these debates I and others have repeated referred to the case of Maira Shahbaz, who was raped and is still virtually under house arrest. We have a Foreign Office Minister here now, and I do not understand why we cannot do more to get this girl out. We have had meetings with the Home Secretary, as have other colleagues. What is the Foreign Office doing about this case? Is there something we are not being told? Many, many migrants are coming to this country, and many of them are not genuine asylum seekers, but Maira Shahbaz is obviously a genuine asylum seeker. We have repeatedly raised her case, but she is still stuck in Pakistan.

The truth is that the position of Christians is very dangerous indeed. What is so sad is the decline of Christianity in the middle east, the home—or first home—of Christianity. It is most marked in Syria where, within a decade, numbers of Christians have plummeted from 1.5 million—10% of the population in 2011 before the war began—to 300,000, which is less than 2% of the population. In the aftermath of the 4 August 2020 Beirut explosions, where the greatest impact was felt in the Christian quarter, Lebanon’s church leaders questioned the community’s long-term survival. In Iraq, the rate of exodus is much slower, with the community down from some 300,000 before the 2014 Daesh invasion to as few as 150,000 today in 2022.

It is so sad that the original home of Christianity is seeing a mass exodus of Christians. The situation is not much better in the west bank of Palestine, Israel. Nearly 75 years on from the creation of the state of Israel, Christians in the west bank have declined from 18% to less than 1% of the population today.

We have heard lots about China and new approaches to China in recent days. I want to comment on the false accusations against Cardinal Zen. Here is a man who is 90 years old, and he has been accused of colluding with foreign forces. It is an absolutely ridiculous allegation. He was associated with the now-defunct 612 humanitarian relief fund, which helped protestors in financial need. This is an old man who has done absolutely nothing wrong. Hong Kong is a place where we have a long history. We made a treaty with China to try to ensure freedom of expression. I raised this matter when we went to Rome with Cardinal Gallagher recently, who is the Foreign Minister of the Holy See. He expressed hope that the Hong Kong authorities would draw back from the most serious charges, which unbelievably carry the possibility of life imprisonment. If we have any influence with the Chinese authorities, can we please raise the case of Cardinal Zen and the totally unjust persecution of this very old, very distinguished and very holy man?

15:58

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am delighted to once again participate in a debate on the freedom of religion or belief, specifically the persecution of Christians and the importance of people being allowed to worship their God, however they perceive Him or Her to be. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. I know that he cares very much about this issue and often raises it in the Chamber. As others have said, it is important that this issue continues to be on the radar of not only this House but the international community.

It is a fundamental, basic freedom to worship your God, however you perceive Him or Her to be. The freedom to choose who you worship and how you worship is a fundamental human right. We have to remember that those nations that persecute Christians and anyone else who follows a religion to which their leaders are hostile—nations that turn a blind eye to the persecution of a number of their citizens based on their faith—also tend to impose and sanction other breaches of human rights.

Persecution on the basis of faith does not happen in isolation, but it is insidious, cruel, repressive and unacceptable. It often goes hand in hand with the repression and subjugation of women. Forcing people to adhere to a particular set of religious beliefs is often little more than a means of control, which is why those who choose to subscribe to a minority religion in repressive states are considered by those leaders to be dangerous and are subject to persecution—if not carried out by the state directly, then sanctioned by the state.

The means of control often include forcing people to subscribe—even if only outwardly—to a particular religion; making it an offence to insult the dominant religion, as we have heard happens in Nigeria; and making blasphemy a crime punishable by death. The days of preaching to convert people the old-fashioned way is clearly not used in such states. As the hon. Member told us, blasphemy laws are too often manipulated to settle petty scores. Alternatively, people are forced to subscribe and defer to a particular religion or die as a result of some perceived act of blasphemy. That seems to be the choice that many face in such regimes.

In this day and age, we can scarcely imagine from the comfort of the west how horrific living in such a place must be if you are a Christian—the most persecuted religion in the world. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom reported 732 blasphemy-related incidents across 41 countries in the short time between 2014 and 2018. Four of the 41 countries accounted for nearly 80% of all reported incidents of mob activity: Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Egypt. Any international engagement by the west with such states takes place under the shadow of the violence and oppression that they perpetrate. It is on that basis that free nations must make it clear that they will not tolerate religious oppression of any kind, and they must use every lever at their disposal—diplomatic or otherwise—to challenge and counter persecution wherever it exists.

I note the comments made by others that Nigeria tops the list of countries with the most violent persecution of Christians. All free and democratic members of the international community must have that information in the forefront of their mind in any dealings with Nigeria or any such state. They must take concentrated and concerted action to challenge and tackle this matter, because hand-wringing and finger-wagging is not working. From Myanmar to Nigeria, Kashmir to Ethiopia, Afghanistan to Somalia, India to Pakistan, and from Saudi Arabia to Iran, at least 360 million Christians have experienced high levels of persecution and discrimination this year alone—20 million more than in 2021. Persecution of Christians is growing, not decreasing.

Every day, around 13 Christians are killed because of their faith. Every day, 12 churches or Christian buildings are attacked. Every day, 12 Christians are unjustly arrested or imprisoned, and another five are abducted. The problem is getting worse. I pay particular tribute to the hugely important work of the charity Open Doors, which works tirelessly to support persecuted Christians around the world. It shines a much-needed light on this persecution on the international stage, so that this horror is not forgotten by members of the international community who value freedom. Open Doors reminds us that its world watch list—the annual accounting of countries that are guilty of most persecution of Christians—is not a compilation list of oppression. Perhaps upliftingly, it lists the resilience of those who hold true to their faith in the face of the greatest and gravest of danger.

Freedom of religion or belief is codified in international law: 41 years ago, in 1981, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution proclaiming the declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief. Despite that declaration, much more needs to be done by the whole international community—of course, I include the UK Government in that—to support freedom of religion or belief around the world. There must be no more important missed opportunities. Sadly, the 2022 international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief, which took place in July in London, has a legacy of diplomatic fall-outs but not much more than that on what we have been pushing for today.

[Fiona Bruce]

I talked about the project of creating education materials for primary schools, which was one of the issues talked about at the ministerial conference. That is actually one of about seven streams of works that the alliance is taking forward following ministerial conference, after we analysed the ideas and suggestions. Obviously, it will take some time to bring forward the fruit of that work, but I hope that in 2023 it will become apparent.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Lady for pointing that out.

The push for greater recognition of the freedom of religion or belief will never be solved by one conference—we all recognise that the problem is too ingrained and too great—but it could have been a more significant step on that important path. But I take the hon. Lady’s point: small steps are steps, none the less.

To make sustained and meaningful progress on this important issue, we need the international community in the west, where we believe in freedom, to engage in an ongoing and evolving mission. We need to be braver about challenging repressive nations that persecute their own people for worshipping their own God. We need to be willing to confront them on the international stage at every opportunity. It is unacceptable for any state, any Government or any person to attempt to interfere with someone or persecute them on the basis of what God they choose to worship. Every nation that believes in freedom should say so and be unafraid to stand up for those who are oppressed. That is their moral obligation and duty. If we do not stand up for freedom, what will we stand up for?

16:08

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. We have had an excellent debate, as always. This very important debate has drawn attention to the persecution of not just Christians but other minorities. Today we are concentrating on the world’s largest faith, the Christian community. The contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was, as always, excellent and very well informed. He is passionate about this subject.

We also heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). She and I have worked on many causes relating to international development and freedom of religion or belief over the years, and she is a champion for Christian beliefs and freedom of religion. She does an excellent job. I hope that if there is ever a change of Government, she can serve under the Labour Government, because she is so good at what she does. That is not a job offer, by the way—I do not have the right to do that—but she really is a credit to this institution.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made a typically excellent contribution. We also heard from the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is a champion for this cause, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for winding up on behalf of the Scottish National party.

As always, it is excellent that the hon. Member for Strangford has secured this timely debate. I also praise his tireless work on the issue. The persecution of Christians contributes a huge amount to the overall religious oppression that we sadly still see across the world today.

Some 360 million Christians—at least, that is the number that I retrieved—face extreme levels of persecution. That is the greatest ever number on record, as the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out. While that oppression impacts on everyone in Christian communities, it also includes gender-specific religious persecution—as the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, and, indeed, the hon. Member for Congleton pointed out—because the persecutors often particularly target women from Christian minorities in a bid to destabilise the whole of their community.

As we approach White Ribbon Day, which aims to draw attention to the ongoing violence against women and girls, it is vital that we work within the international community, using our diplomatic influence, to tackle those countries that view Christian women and girls simply as sexual objects and vehicles of shame. It is also deeply disturbing that incidents of sexual violence against Christian women and girls were reported in 90% of countries in the top 50 of the Open Doors world watch list in 2022. Will the Minister tell us what the UK is doing on the international stage to tackle such vile persecution?

[Fiona Bruce]

London will host a conference of the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative on 28 and 29 November, and I hope that it will highlight the double jeopardy for women who are persecuted for their gender as well as their faith or belief. Does the hon. Member agree that that is very important?

[Fabian Hamilton]

Yes, and I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I absolutely agree, because the two are not separable. It is tragic that that should be the case.

Today, we have heard of many horrific experiences of Christians across the world. However, I would like to turn my attention to another case study of persecution against Christians, which the right hon. Member for Gainsborough mentioned. As my regional brief on Labour’s Front Bench covers Latin America, I am well aware of the issues facing democracy and the freedom of expression in Nicaragua. Sadly, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that has had a huge impact on Christians who do not fully conform to the will of the Ortega regime—or should I say dictatorship?

In August, a Roman Catholic bishop was put under house arrest, and four priests, two seminarians and a cameraman were also imprisoned. In the middle of the night, Nicaraguan security forces stormed the property where Bishop Rolando Álvarez and 11 others had been confined for 15 days. Bishop Álvarez was forcibly taken and placed under house arrest while the other priests, seminarians and the cameraman were held in detention.

In addition to those shocking and unjustified arrests, the Nicaraguan Government shut down all radio stations associated with the bishop that were critical of the Ortega regime. Everyone arrested should be released and the persecution of Roman Catholics’ freedom of expression in Nicaragua must be brought to an end. What are the Government doing to challenge the Nicaraguan Government, and have they considered further sanctions against that country?

On a more positive note, I visited Colombia in May, six months ago, to look at the election situation and to consider the attacks on trade unionists and religious and indigenous people in that country. I saw the brilliant work of the Roman Catholic Church’s Justice and Peace Commission, which took me to the suburb of Usme to meet the youth collective there. The commission sponsored and supported them, helped to build the community centre, and underpinned the security of that organisation, which was, at the time, under attack from the police.

Red Wednesday, on 23 November, is an opportunity for all of us across this House to reaffirm our support for Christians as well as freedom of religious belief across the world, just as we have done during this debate. Christians contribute so much to our society, but they must be allowed to contribute as much in the many other countries where they are still being targeted solely for their faith and their belief.

I am proud to represent Leeds North East, where we have an extremely diverse community, made up of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and atheists, as well as other minority religions. We are culturally, morally and spiritually richer for this mix, so it is only right that we play our part in trying to ensure that communities in other countries across the world can exist in such great harmony.

16:15

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I should tell you that in the 35 years I have been in this House and in my three stints in Government, this is only the second time I have responded to a debate in this Chamber—but it is the second time in two days. It is a bit like buses: I wait for 35 years and then two come along almost immediately.

I am in effect standing in for Lord Ahmad—it is obvious why—who, as a number of people said, is the Minister who has considerable knowledge of this issue and worked extremely hard on it. He will read our debate with the greatest possible interest.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate and I commend him for his long-standing commitment to freedom of religion or belief for all. His speech today was littered with the wisdom and authority that he commands in the House. He is much respected across the House for what he has to say. He ended his remarks by looking at the Gospel according to St Matthew, and our debate was enriched by that contribution.

I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, which continues to raise awareness of this human right among parliamentarians and the public alike. The shared passion across the House to protect freedom of religion or belief is clear, warranted and to be warmly welcomed. I will try to respond to the various points that have been made during the debate and to highlight the UK action in respect of that.

I will come to the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) later in my remarks, but I thought he spoke for the entire House today. He praised my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce)—he did not quite offer her a job, but he nearly did—and saluted her ecumenical approach politically. The whole House will agree with that. He urged us to use our diplomatic influence to stop persecution—we most certainly are, and will—and on his point about Colombia, one of the other Foreign Office Ministers will shortly be there to amplify and emphasise the cross-party approach that we are taking.

It is fitting that this debate falls just ahead of Red Wednesday, a day to stand in solidarity with persecuted Christians. The Foreign Office will demonstrate our support by lighting our building in red. We have noted the report from Aid to the Church in Need, released yesterday, and we will study its findings closely.

I pay particular tribute to Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, for his work standing up for persecuted minorities and on development. He speaks with unique authority about our moral duty to the poorest and least well-off. In the same spirit as the hon. Member for Leeds North East, I express my admiration and praise for the faith communities across Birmingham who work so impressively together and to great effect and success. The royal town of Sutton Coldfield makes an enormously constructive contribution to such important issues. In the royal town, we have the Bishop of Aston, who makes a great contribution and resides in my constituency.

Like this House, the Government believe that violence against any person because of their religion or belief is wholly unacceptable. Although this debate particularly highlights the plight of persecuted Christians, we do not forget or in any way diminish the experience of those persecuted for holding other religions, beliefs or no religious beliefs at all. The Government are committed to championing freedom of religion or belief for everyone—something enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights and in our own organisational values. My noble Friend Lord Ahmad, the Minister responsible for human rights, continues to work closely with the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, to deliver precisely on that commitment.

We demonstrated the depth of our commitment this summer by hosting an international ministerial conference that brought together more than 800 faith and belief leaders and human rights actors and 100 Government delegations to agree action to promote and protect these fundamental rights. As a result of the conference, 47 Governments, international organisations and other entities made pledges to take action in support of freedom of religion or belief.

In addition, we are pursuing three broad strands to advance freedom of religion or belief and tackle the associated human rights concerns: first, working through multilateral bodies; secondly, working with states directly to encourage and support them to uphold their human rights obligations; and thirdly, through our continuing work to implement the recommendations of the Bishop of Truro’s 2019 review.

On multilateral action—the first strand—we work with organisations such as the United Nations, Council of Europe, G7 and the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief. Again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for her dedicated work as the UK representative and chair of the alliance. Under her leadership, participation has grown to 42 countries. I welcome the joint statements recently issued by the alliance on concerns related to Ahmadi Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baha’is, Ukraine, Nicaragua and Nigeria—on which I will say more in a minute, if time permits.

In September, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad spoke at the United Nations and urged the international community to call out Iran for systematically targeting members of minority communities, to press Afghanistan to protect minorities targeted for their beliefs, to challenge the discriminatory provisions in Myanmar’s citizenship laws and to hold China to account for its egregious human rights violations in Xinjiang.

In our bilateral work, we regularly raise specific issues with other Governments, both in public and in private, where that may result in better outcomes. My noble Friend Lord Ahmad met Pakistan’s Minister for Human Rights in October to raise the persecution of minorities, including the forced conversion of young Christian and Hindu girls. In Iraq, religious and ethnic minority populations have significantly declined since 2003 due to exclusion, sectarianism and conflict. Many of these minority communities continue to face extreme challenges in 2022. We regularly raise the need to protect ethnic and religious minorities with the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government—most recently in July 2022, again, by my noble Friend Lord Ahmad with the Kurdistan Regional Government Minister for Religious Affairs.

I am also grateful to those who have raised the issue of Nigeria, where both Christians and Muslims have suffered devastating harm at the hands of violent extremist groups, and separately as a result of intercommunal violence and criminality. We remain committed to supporting peacebuilding initiatives across Nigeria to address the root causes of violence, protect human rights and promote dialogue and respect between different ethnic and religious communities.

Finally, the Bishop of Truro’s review set out the gravity of the issue of Christian persecution, along with practical recommendations for an enhanced Government response to the plight of persecuted Christians and people persecuted for holding other religions, beliefs or no religious belief at all. We welcome the findings of the independent review of our work to take forward the recommendations. That assessment earlier this year concluded that the majority of the recommendations are either at an advanced stage of delivery or in the process of being delivered, while noting that more can always be done.

We will continue to ensure that the changes we have made are embedded, and we will look for opportunities to ensure that freedom of religion or belief is central to wider human rights work. To provide a few examples, we have sent a clear message through our global human rights sanctions regime that the international community will not turn a blind eye to serious and systematic violations of human rights. In December 2021, we sanctioned Furqan Bangalzai for his role in orchestrating the 2017 bombing of a Sufi shrine in Pakistan, which killed over 70 people. In March 2021, Lord Ahmad hosted a meeting at the UN Security Council to raise awareness of persecution of religious minorities in conflict zones. Religion for international engagement training is now available to all civil servants to enhance their understanding of the role of religion and belief in a wide variety of contexts, in order to deliver the UK’s international objectives more effectively.

I now turn to some of the specific contributions, starting with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. She does so much good work and speaks so eloquently, as she demonstrated so well today. Across our country, many people in the faith communities will be grateful to her for her leadership. She is going to send information on Nigeria and share it with Lord Ahmad. Of course, it will be a pleasure to have the meeting that she requested. I will look carefully and write if I miss any of her other points. In particular, she raised the issue of the attack on St Francis Xavier Catholic Church in Owo, Ondo state. I want her to know that we condemn that horrific attack and we extend our sympathies to all those affected. We condemn attacks on places of worship. Everybody should be free to practise their religion or belief without fear.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) spoke about a number of organisations that do so much to help. I want to echo his thanks to them. He also raised Iran, whose human rights record continues to be of serious concern to the UK; the Foreign Office has designated it as one of its human rights priority countries. The continued use of the death penalty, weak rule of law and restrictions on freedom of expression and religion or belief are deeply worrying.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) spoke with his great experience, but lugubriously. He asked us to use our influence to greater effect in Nigeria. I will be going there before long, and I will raise directly the points that he made. He also raised the issue of Nicaragua, as did the hon. Member for Leeds North East. Reports of harassment and detention of members of the Catholic Church in Nicaragua are of enormous concern. Freedom of religion or belief is a universal human right, and we have made it clear there that they must be protected.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough also raised the Aid to the Church in Need petition to grant Maira Shahbaz asylum. I am very conscious of that case. I know my right hon. Friend will accept that I must be careful when commenting in public on individual cases where individuals’ or their families’ lives could be put at risk, but I want him to know that I am deeply conscious of his point.

My right hon. Friend also raised a point about Cardinal Zen. We will certainly continue to make representations. We are closely following the cases of pro-democracy figures who face charges in Hong Kong, including Cardinal Zen. Officials from the British consulate general in Hong Kong attend local court hearings related to a number of rights and freedoms issues and will continue to do so. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) addressed in forthright terms the evil of persecution and the various ways in which that evil is pursued and delivered. She spoke about Open Doors, for which we are extremely grateful.

To conclude, as a long-standing champion of human rights and freedoms, the United Kingdom has not only a duty but a deep desire to promote and defend our values of equality, inclusion and respect at home and abroad. I assure Members here today that the Government will do just that. We will continue to raise awareness of all persecution and we will defend the right to freedom of religion or belief for everyone, everywhere.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered persecution of Christians and freedom of religion or belief.

16:30

Sitting adjourned.