(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered prisoners of conscience.
Many Members would like to have been here today but unfortunately were unable to be because of other commitments. We know what those commitments are, given what is happening today across this great nation. Today we gather in this esteemed House not simply to address issues of the moment, but to reflect on the principles that define our humanity and on our collective moral obligations. It is an honour to have been involved in many such debates over the past 12 years. This topic —prisoners of conscience—is close to my heart and the hearts of many Members, some of whom are here, while others have unfortunately been unable to attend.
We speak not for ourselves but for the voiceless. I take seriously the tenets of my faith, as others do theirs. A verse that I often recall in times like this is Proverbs 31:8-9:
“Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
I know that those ideals are held by many Members, regardless of their religious persuasion. This issue calls on us to uphold our shared values and to support and assist those who are less fortunate than ourselves.
Prisoners of conscience, who live in a state of despair due to their faith or belief, are not criminals. They are doctors, teachers, artists, writers, pastors and journalists, and they are all people of faith. Their so-called crime is to think freely, to believe openly, to speak honestly. Prisoners of conscience are individuals who are in prison not for any crime but for their beliefs, their expression of thought or their unwavering commitment to their values. They are a testament to the human spirit’s resilience against tyranny. It is important for us to remember that they are members of our global family—our brothers and sisters—and they are deserving of our advocacy and support.
Let us turn our attention to articles 18 and 19 of the universal declaration of human rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. That pivotal document laid the foundations for our understanding of human rights worldwide. Article 18 states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
Those words show clearly what article 18 means: freedom for people to express themselves in any way they wish in relation to their religious beliefs.
I welcome the Minister to her place. She always speaks well on these matters, and we very much look forward to her response. I do not think that she will be found wanting in relation to what we ask of her today. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), and others who will contribute.
The rights of teaching, practice, worship and observance are not optional or cultural; they are universal. Yet in 2025, we stand here amid a global crisis of conscience. Thousands sit in cells, unjustly detained, tortured and silenced, merely for professing their faith or upholding their convictions. That is not hypothetical; it is happening all day, every day, for many people. According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, as of 2024 at least 72 Christians are either imprisoned or missing in four of the world’s five communist countries: 52 are currently imprisoned in China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam, while the other 20 are missing. In North Korea alone, an estimated 80,000 to 120,000 individuals, many of whom are Christian, are detained in prisons.
Article 18 enshrines the fundamental right of individuals to hold their beliefs—whether spiritual, political or philosophical—and to express those beliefs freely and openly.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman, who always speaks with such compassion and conviction, is making a powerful case. One of the worst examples is the detention of Armenian prisoners of war by Azerbaijan. They have not broken any criminal code, as he says; they are public servants held for political purposes, with no clear legal redress or access, or even clear grounds as to why they are being held. Does he agree that international law should dictate here, not domestic politics, with Governments marking their own homework? I praise my constituent Annette Moskofian, who represents Armenians in the UK. The Minister can be assured that I will write to her with some of Annette’s demands after the debate.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is right to mention the Armenians. If we go back even further, we remember what happened in the Armenian genocide. She outlines the case of those prisoners of conscience and prisoners of conflict in Armenia. I know that the Minister has taken note of that and will come back to the hon. Lady, who I thank for her intervention.
As we all know, thousands find themselves in prisons across the globe, not because they have violated laws but because they have dared to articulate beliefs that challenge powerful interests or unpopular narratives. They are individuals who stand firm in their convictions at great personal cost. I admire any person who takes a stand on something that they fundamentally and strongly believe in. It is unacceptable that in the 21st century, we continue to witness the persecution of such individuals. From China to Iran, and Russia to Nigeria, those who seek simply to express their beliefs and exercise their rights have faced unjust attention and oppressive action.
These are not isolated incidents. Unfortunately, they reflect systematic state hostility towards religion and belief, particularly under communist regimes. As Nobel laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn warned in 1983:
“Hatred of God is the principal driving force”
behind communist policy. Militant atheism is not incidental; it is essential to communist control.
Let me be clear: such persecution is not limited to Christians. Shi’a and Sunni Muslims, Baha’is, Falun Gong practitioners, Hindus, Jews and many others face repression across the globe. Freedom of religion or belief is a human right, not a privilege of one faith or nation. It is every individual’s right. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, I am honoured to discuss this topic. To help those individuals, I believe that we must make a stand against that injustice, which is why I asked for this debate. We must remind those in power that voices of dissent, and freedom of thought, consciousness and religion, represent not merely an individual right but a foundation of democratic society, and that their offences are not going unnoticed. Today, we bring that to the attention of all the places across the world where this is happening.
Let us affirm our commitment to liberty by remembering the ongoing struggles faced by prisoners of conscience around the world. May we encourage our constituents and communities—mine encourage me every day—to keep those prisoners in their thoughts and prayers, while working together, through advocacy and informed action, to champion the values enshrined in article 18, and to promote the many benefits these freedoms bring to societies that uphold them.
Alongside article 18, we must consider article 19, which states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Opinion and expression are the bedrock of any vibrant society that wishes to do well and take people with it, in unison. They enable societies to grow and thrive. When we suppress dissent, we undermine progress. There are thousands of prisoners. How can we respond to those innumerable violations of human rights? How can we begin to make a difference? I often think of the analogy of the wee boy on the beach with the starfish. The adult says, “You can’t save them all.” The wee boy says, “But I can save this one.”
We have the power to advocate loudly and clearly not just for the release of prisoners of conscience, but for the root causes of this duress to be confronted and dismantled through sustained diplomatic pressure, international co-operation, and the strengthening of legal and institutional protections for freedom of religion or belief. It is our responsibility to challenge the environments, be they legal, political or ideological, that allow such injustices to persist and to ensure that no individual is ever imprisoned for living according to their conscience.
I call on the Government to prioritise the issue of freedom of religion or belief violations in diplomatic dialogues—I know our Minister does that, and I believe our Government do, but for the purposes of this debate, we seek that reassurance—particularly with states known for systematic abuse. I can think of many examples, including China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. We must sanction the individuals responsible for religious persecution, and we must fund and support civil society groups working to secure prisoner releases.
Let us stand united in our unwavering commitment to uphold the principles enshrined in the freedom to change religion or belief, if that is a choice. Together, let us be that voice for the voiceless and that hope for the hopeless. They will probably never see this debate, but they need to be reassured that we are speaking for them in the way that we should.
I would like to mention some of the thousands of prisoners of conscience who are currently held in this awful state. Let the record show we have not forgotten them. I just want to name them; I will not go into all the details, but it is important that we have them on record. They include Jimmy Lai, a pro-democracy activist and media tycoon in Hong Kong, imprisoned for his advocacy of freedom of the press, and a British citizen—we have not forgotten about him; Sahar Mahdavi, an Iranian woman detained for participating in peaceful protests advocating for women’s rights—my Ulster Scots accent will destroy these names; Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, a Nigerian gospel musician sentenced to death for allegedly blasphemous lyrics in a song shared on WhatsApp; Renagul Gheni, a Uyghur woman detained in China for practising her faith; Mojdeh Falahi, an Iranian Christian convert imprisoned for her religious beliefs; Cao Thi Cuc, a Vietnamese Christian leader arrested for her religious activities; Y Pum Bya, a Montagnard Christian from Vietnam detained for his faith; Mahvash Sabet, a member of the Baha’i community in Iran, imprisoned for her religious beliefs; Nguyen Bac Truyen, a Vietnamese human rights lawyer and religious freedom advocate imprisoned for his activism; Maira Shahbaz, a Pakistani Christian teenager abducted and forced into a marriage and conversion, now seeking asylum; Mubarak Bala, a Nigerian humanist sentenced to 24 years in prison for blasphemy—his faith and his right to hold his views is as important as all the rest; Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo, a Yemeni Christian convert imprisoned for his faith; Naser Navard Goltapeh, an Iranian Christian convert sentenced to 10 years in prison for “acting against national security”; and Leah Sharibu, a Nigerian schoolgirl abducted by Boko Haram and held captive for refusing to renounce her Christian faith.
Most recently, I have looked at the case of the continued imprisonment of Chinese dissident Dr Wang Bingzhang, founder of China Spring magazine, a leader of the overseas China pro-democracy movement and a permanent resident of the United States. Dr Wang Bingzhang was kidnapped while travelling to Vietnam in 2002, taken to the People’s Republic of China and sentenced to life imprisonment for his activism after a trial that lasted half a day and was closed to the public, where he was denied the right to due process and a fair trial. He has been held in solitary confinement throughout his 23 years in prison, and his physical and mental health have seriously declined.
The United Nations working group on arbitrary detention declared that
“the detention of Wang Bingzhang is arbitrary, being in contravention of articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.
Congressional resolution 326 in the 108th United States Congress of 2003-04 resolved that Dr Wang Bingzhang
“is being arbitrarily detained in the People’s Republic of China in violation of international law”.
It is quite clear that he should be released, and he has been in prison for 23 years. The international case is clear, and we should co-ordinate with the Government of the United States in efforts to seek the release of Dr Wang Bingzhang and his safe, immediate and unconditional return to the United States from the People’s Republic of China. Could he be one of the starfish saved? While acknowledging that we cannot save them all, we can save some.
We must keep hope alive, and I hope that this debate will keep that hope alive for all those people. As Luke 4:18 reminds us:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me…to proclaim liberty to the captives and…to set at liberty those who are oppressed”.
Let us proclaim that liberty and not forget the daily plight of prisoners of conscience, alongside faith groups, international allies, non-governmental organisations and parliamentarians worldwide, because this is not just the UK’s fight—this is the world’s fight; it is humanity’s fight for every one of those people.
The House is aware that my private Member’s Bill, the Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill, is scheduled for Second Reading. I have introduced this Bill because I believe we can do more. Today, as I think of prisoners of conscience, I also think of the persecuted Church of Christ and those who are persecuted simply because of their faith across the world. We cannot save them all, but we can do more to save some. I look to the Government to stand up, stand alongside them and send a message that the treatment of the human rights of those who are a minority will impact on trade deals, our Government aid programmes and all aspects of international involvement.
This is about one thing alone: freedom—freedom to express ourselves, in the way that we have the right to in this country. It matters to a prisoner of conscience; it matters to the families; it matters to the politicians; and it matters to this House. I hope the Minister and the Government will take the opportunity today to show that it also matters to them.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
It is an enormous privilege to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a tremendous advocate for the voiceless. May I begin by reiterating the importance of the questions that he has raised and by asking the Minister to address in her winding up the question of what action has followed the telephone call between the Prime Minister and President al-Sisi on the question of pursuing the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah? Is there any plan for securing the release of Jimmy Lai?
We have had many prisoners of conscience of our own. At random, off the top of my head, I could name Thomas More, Dr Barnes, Latimer and Ridley, Cranmer, Archbishop Laud, and even John Bunyan in Bedford jail. A free Parliament that had the will to do so could have campaigned for their release, and history might have been significantly different. The problem for us now is that the prisoners of conscience are well beyond our jurisdiction, so when we raise cases with Ministers, often enough we have no leverage whatsoever with the jurisdictions that have imprisoned them. We can no longer simply deploy the Royal Navy, as we might have done in the past, and as indeed we did when we deployed it to eradicate the scandal of the international slave trade.
Even in those jurisdictions where we do have alliances, shared national interests and good diplomatic relations, often enough Governments have bigger fish to fry with respect to regional security and stability, and international trade, so when we raise cases with Ministers, we are told, “These were raised at the highest level”—indeed, when I was a Minister, I raised them at the highest level —but not much action follows.
Are we wasting our breath? Are we wasting the House’s time? This is not a counsel of despair. It is essential that we continue to do as the hon. Member for Strangford has done: to persevere. We have to try—we have to try to lift the odd starfish, as he says. At the very least, we will have sent a powerful message to those prisoners, their relatives and their friends that they are not forgotten, that we do campaign for them and, indeed, that we pray for them.
We are reminded in chapter 12 of the Acts of the Apostles that St Peter, guarded by four squads and chained between two soldiers, is sprung by an angel. In chapter 16, Paul and Silas are sprung in an earthquake and end up evangelising the prison governor. Until those miraculous days return, however, we are confined to continuing to raise matters with Ministers.
Accordingly, I raise the case of Ali Minaei, a young man in Iran who has been in prison for the last year. He was sentenced for having attended a church service in somebody’s home. He also has a severe heart condition. He is denied medical treatment in prison, and has been subject to beatings, including blows to his chest. It is not untypical for Christians in Iran to be sentenced for crimes against state security, to be given long sentences, to have prolonged interrogation, sexual harassment, and beatings, or to be denied privileges that other prisoners have access to.
I see young Ali as an architype for all those prisoners of conscience that my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford mentioned, be they imprisoned for advocating for human rights, for their insistence on freedom of expression, or because of their adherence to a minority faith, and whether they be imprisoned in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, North Korea, Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Venezuela or wheresoever.
I share a belief with my hon. Friend that there will be a day of liberation, when the prisoners will be freed. But that day of rapture will also be a day of wrath and judgment for their oppressors. We ought all to shrink from that judgment, because we share in the guilt of their tormentors through our inaction and by our silence.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. We all agree that the number of Members able to attend in the Chamber today in no way reflects the importance we attribute to the issue; it has much more to do with the democratic processes happening in parish halls and on doorsteps across the country right now.
As Liberal Democrats, we stand firmly in solidarity with those imprisoned for their political views around the world. We believe that free speech and the freedom to organise are fundamental democratic rights, and those imprisoned for such causes are true symbols in the fight for democracy, free expression and the right to challenge Government policies. The free practice of religion should be a universal right for all people, everywhere. It is vital that we shine a light on religious persecution wherever we find it, and commit to opposing it with unwavering resolve. Many religious people globally face extreme forms of oppression, including threats to their very lives. We are deeply concerned by the lack of global action to safeguard religious freedoms, protect minority groups and uphold human rights. That must change.
Liberal Democrats have a proud history as strong defenders of freedom of religion and belief. Those are not just political positions; they are our core beliefs. Human rights and the rule of law stand at the very heart of what it means to be a Liberal Democrat. In our 2024 general election manifesto, we committed once again to protect, defend and promote human rights for all, including those persecuted for their religion or belief. We called for the appointment of an ambassador-level champion for freedom of belief, and increased funding for humanitarian aid and asylum support for those fleeing religious persecution. We firmly believe that liberalism and co-operation have a vital role to play in securing peace, promoting democracy, and defending human rights across the world. The UK must work with allies as a champion of freedom of belief.
Today, certain countries have notably high numbers of prisoners of conscience, often tied to political regimes, religious repression or authoritarian governance. In China, the Government’s policies in Xinjiang have led to the mass detention of Uyghur Muslims in “re-education” camps, where they face torture and forced indoctrination. House Church Christians face harassment, arrest and imprisonment simply for practising their faith outside state control. The deliberate, systematic persecution of the Uyghur population meets the standard for imposing sanctions under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. We call on the Government urgently to issue their UK-China audit, to set out a clear approach that includes work to shine a spotlight on Beijing’s human rights abuses.
Russia, under President Putin’s increasingly authoritarian leadership, has seen a crackdown on opposition figures, journalists, and minority religious groups. Jehovah’s Witnesses have been labelled an extremist organisation, leading to numerous arrests.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
In power there are balances of opportunity and risk, and one important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) was that Ministers often have bigger fish to fry when dealing with international relations. From the hon. Gentleman’s perspective, what is the right balance between standing up against human rights abuses, and maintaining and developing relations with emerging powers such as China?
James MacCleary
That is an important question—indeed, it is one of the questions for British foreign policy as we go forward. This is not just about China; we can also look at a country such as Türkiye at the moment, where we see clear oppression of political opposition, although Türkiye also plays a key role in the defence in Europe and the future of European security in relation to Russia. The hon. Gentleman is completely correct. It is not for me to tell the Government how to get the balance right, but any Government need to have a set of principles that they abide to, and to say, “This is the standard we are setting, and we apply it equally to everybody.” Those of us in the room might come to different conclusions as to what those standards are, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not underestimate the compromises that have to be made by Ministers. Obviously I am not in that position, but some of us in the Chamber are, and I welcome the intervention.
In Russia, political dissidents and human rights activists have been persecuted—a clear example of that is the late Alexei Navalny, who died in prison on dubious and politically motivated charges. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who published the famous book “The Gulag Archipelago” in the 1970s. That was so dangerous to the Soviet regime that it was suppressed completely and banned in Russia—a great example of how freedom of expression can play an important role in bringing down entire regimes, however secure they may seem at the time.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I declare my interest as an unpaid trustee of the Index on Censorship. Thinking specifically about regimes such as that in Russia, and the importance of allowing journalists, activists and others to achieve a level of freedom of expression in those very repressive regimes, what would the hon. Gentleman say about the support given via different Government agencies for people in those sorts of situations?
James MacCleary
That is an area of great importance, particularly in Russia, where the regime has now become so stifling that there is little freedom of expression at all within the country, and we do not see much—Alexei Navalny was a great example of Vladimir Putin completing his suppression of political opposition. It is fundamental for our Government to support voices for democracy and freedom across the world, and that is particularly important now when we face this challenge from Russia, which is interfering in the internal processes of other countries. It also becomes particularly incumbent on leading democracies such as ours to find ways to help promote freedom of expression, and the ability of journalists to do their jobs is particularly important to that.
We have a moral duty to stand with those who risk everything for democratic and press freedom, from Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong to Mzia Amaglobeli, a journalist who was recently arrested in Georgia—a good example of Russian overseas interference. The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) was right to mention Alaa Abdel el-Fattah, who is imprisoned in Egypt. Their courage is a stark reminder that defending democratic values must never be selective or silent.
In Iran, the regime maintains a strict interpretation of Shi’a Islam and enforces its religious laws through harsh measures. Members of the Baha’i faith are persecuted on charges of apostasy or heresy. Christians, especially converts from Islam, face arrest as conversion is considered a criminal offence. The recent crackdown following the death of Mahsa Amini demonstrates the regime’s continued brutality.
According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, there are currently 1,342 individuals assessed as imprisoned for their religion or belief, with the highest numbers found in China, Russia and Iran. The Government must do more to work with our international partners to secure the protection of religious rights and robustly challenge states to ensure all people are safe to worship and express their political beliefs. This must include states upholding Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights that guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
We call for specific actions: first, using the UK’s Magnitsky sanctions, to stand up against human rights abuses; secondly, banning imports from areas with egregious abuses, such as Xinjiang; thirdly, enshrining in law a right for British nationals who have been politically detained abroad to access UK consular services; fourthly, developing a comprehensive strategy for promoting the decriminalization of homosexuality and advancing LGBT+ rights globally; and finally, stronger UK engagement with international bodies, such as the United Nations, the European Union and the Commonwealth to promote religious freedom worldwide. We call for a long-term, comprehensive global strategy to protect freedom of expression, political and religious rights, and to create a world where no one is imprisoned for peacefully expressing their beliefs.
The Liberal Democrats strongly oppose any form of authoritarian or totalitarian rule that seeks to imprison or silence individuals for their beliefs. We will continue to urge the Government to use the UK’s influence and foreign policy to promote and protect these values.
Jerome Mayhew
Is there not a dichotomy there? The Liberal Democrats profess that they are against authoritarian rule, and yet for us to project power internationally, even if that is soft power, we risk involving ourselves in the sovereign decisions of independent countries. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when we seek to impose our values on other cultures and countries we create a tension? Where does he think the right balance lies?
James MacCleary
Whole books on liberalism are written about this very topic, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows. The situation in the United States at the moment has brought this into sharp focus. For many years, we have heard countries around the world speaking about how America, at times with our support, has intervened in the internal affairs of their countries, and have asked how that is consistent when America has complained about them doing the same thing. Now that America is taking a different role, perhaps some people are reassessing what levels we should go to. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question right now, although I am happy to have a separate discussion with him, if he would like, but hon. Members who are interested in foreign affairs have to think about the subject that he touches on and where the line lies. Famously, the Americans refer to the Mogadishu line as a line that they crossed in Somalia, where they felt they got too involved in the internal affairs of that country. Clearly, that is a difficult issue, but I thank him for raising it.
To conclude, our commitment is clear: to protect, defend and promote human rights for all around the world. We will not rest until every person can freely express their beliefs without fear of persecution.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I begin by extending my thanks to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. He is a tireless defender of human rights and his dedication to the cause of those who are persecuted for their beliefs, wherever they may be, is courageous, admirable and much needed. I thank him for it. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling the discussion to take place. It is a vital debate and it is only a shame that there are not more hon. Members present.
This country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has long been a sanctuary for the oppressed, and this Chamber has been a voice for the voiceless and a champion of liberty. From the days of William Wilberforce to the last Government’s establishment of a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, this House of Commons has stood up for the fundamental freedoms of speech, conscience and belief—long may that continue. I wish to speak for those who cannot speak freely themselves and who languish in prison cells, not for any crime but simply for having the courage to believe differently, to respectfully challenge authority or to follow their conscience in the face of tyranny.
We have had a short but meaningful debate, with some excellent contributions from colleagues on all sides of the House. The hon. Member for Strangford, who spoke passionately, as he always does, told us about the importance of defending those who profess their faith and uphold their convictions, and the importance of standing up for freedom. The love of freedom has always inspired me in politics. I grew up in the 1980s, when we had a Prime Minister who defended freedom around the world. Margaret Thatcher stood against totalitarianism and communism across the world, particularly in the Soviet Union. A belief in freedom and liberty drives the Conservative party. Love of country is part of that, and we have always been a nation that has stood up for the liberties and freedoms of the people of these islands.
I have great admiration for the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who is no longer in her place, and I have worked closely with her on the issue of Armenia. We recall the Armenian genocide 110 years ago. She referred to her constituent, Annette Moskofian, who I also know very well and with whom I have worked on upholding the freedom of the people of Armenia. As the hon. Lady said, Armenian prisoners who are being kept in Azerbaijani jails also need to have their freedom. Armenia needs to live as an independent, free democracy without fear, and the people must be allowed to express their views freely. Last week, I attended a wreath laying at the Cenotaph with the hon. Lady and other hon. Members from across the House in support of our friends from Armenia, which is a Christian country that simply wants to be democratic and independent and not to be threatened by an aggressive neighbour.
No one in this House could ever compete with the passion, belief and deeply held views of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). I have admired him ever since I entered the House in 2001. He speaks with enormous passion and he understands that this is a Christian country. Our laws, traditions and customs are founded on those Christian traditions. If we discard them, we discard everything we have in this country. That does not mean that we do not respect other religions, but our Christian heritage is fundamental and leads Britain to be a champion of freedom, free speech and freedom of religion and democracy around the world, as we have been for far longer than most other countries. My right hon. Friend rightly reminded us of how our own Royal Navy eroded the slave trade—it is often forgotten that it was Britain that led the way against the slave trade. I thank him for everything that he does to stand up for the rights of the oppressed, and particularly those religious minorities who are denied the right to worship and practise freely.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), spoke extremely well and raised a lot of issues that are well known throughout the House. He spoke about the Uyghurs in Xinjiang and the importance of the China audit, which we are still waiting for; it is important that we get on with that. We have a moral duty to stand up for those who have lost their freedom; Britain has a proud record of that. That transcends party politics, and I am sure that it will do so in this House today. He also mentioned those of the Baha’i faith who are persecuted, which is another very important point.
There were superb interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), who has now left his place. He spoke rightly about the balance between dealing with nations around the world: we want good relations and trade and co-operation, and we want to work with many countries economically, but equally we need to think about human rights. We need to balance those things. Equally, he spoke about imposing our values on other countries, which is always a balance. We cannot impose British values on every country of different traditions and religions, but nevertheless we should never be silent when we see an injustice. I know that certainly on the Opposition Benches—and, I am sure, on the Government Benches—as people who believe in freedom and democracy we all stand for standing up against injustice, wherever it may be in the world.
I will rightly focus on the people Members have mentioned who are wrongly detained in prisons for their religion or belief. What practical steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to monitor, identify and support such individuals? The Minister has lots of time to answer all these questions. She will need to tell us very clearly what resources are being allocated by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to monitor prisoners of conscience globally. How is that information being used in the UK’s broader human rights strategy? As a member of the Article 18 Alliance, will the Minister tell us whether the UK actively proposes names for international advocacy?
As we have already heard, the statistics are deeply alarming. According to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, more than 1,300 individuals are currently imprisoned for their beliefs in just 28 countries. That includes 532 people in communist China, 327 people in Putin’s Russia and 87 people in Iran. Other Members have mentioned other countries where similar issues need to be addressed, such as Vietnam and North Korea. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton mentioned Azerbaijan and Armenia, which I referred to earlier.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West quite rightly mentioned Venezuela. I met a delegation from Venezuela only last week, and I was an observer at a Venezuelan election some years ago. I have to say that it was not very democratic, and I do not think that much has changed since—in fact, it has got a lot worse. We should absolutely highlight that country as one in need of radical democratic change. My right hon. Friend also mentioned Egypt and Turkey.
There are many other countries that we could think of, but the point is that Britain must lead the way. We are the nation that always stands up for the rights and freedoms of peoples, and we must do so with vigour and without compromise. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have raised specific cases with the Governments of those countries and others? If so, will she tell us which ones she has been speaking to in recent days?
I am aware that this debate is centred on matters of faith. However, I, like the hon. Member for Strangford, take the opportunity to raise the case of Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai. We need to see him released, and an end to his politically motivated trial and the repeal of the draconian national security law in Hong Kong. It is one matter to speak in this place about individuals far afield who have little to no connection with these islands, but it is another matter when it involves a British national. What developments have there been on that issue so far? We talk a lot about it, but we see very little action. Given that the Government look as though they are becoming more economically aligned with China, which I think is a huge error, will Jimmy Lai’s case be front and centre in our engagements with Beijing? Has the Minister specifically called for Jimmy Lai’s release in dealings with her Chinese counterparts?
I commend the hon. Member for Strangford and all the members of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief for their laudable initiative and tireless efforts in launching a scheme that enables Members of this House to advocate for individual prisoners of conscience. That initiative represents a meaningful and compassionate step towards amplifying the voices of those who have been unjustly detained for exercising their fundamental rights. In the light of that important work, I must ask the Minister whether the FCDO is actively supporting that endeavour by assisting Members in establishing contact with relevant embassies in the United Kingdom as well as engaging with international legal and diplomatic mechanisms to strengthen advocacy on behalf of those individuals.
I am pleased that the Government heeded the call from the Opposition Benches on renewing the last Government’s position in having a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. However, can the Minister outline exactly what the special envoy is doing to advance the cause of individual prisoners of conscience? Has the envoy engaged directly with foreign Governments or institutions to press for their release? Do the Government intend to enshrine the post in law, for which my good friend the former Member for Congleton, Fiona Bruce, passionately campaigned when she served in this House until last year?
Britain has long used both aid and diplomacy to promote our values abroad. In that context, I ask the Minister whether the allocation of UK aid to recipient countries is ever made conditional on demonstrable progress in safeguarding freedom of religion or belief. Is consideration given specifically to the treatment of individuals imprisoned solely on account of their religious convictions? Is our financial assistance ever leveraged to encourage reform and accountability in such cases? Those in prison today for their beliefs, be they Christian, Ahmadiyya Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, any other religion or members of minority or non-religious communities, deserve more than just our concern: they deserve our advocacy, our voice and our unwavering defence.
Our foreign policy must reflect not only our national interests, but a projection of how we treat our own people. We must never shy away from calling out wickedness and unjust imprisonment or from defending the right to freedom of conscience. As the great John Stuart Mill, once a Member of this House, so wisely said:
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
We look forward to this Government doing something.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to respond to Members in what has been a fascinating debate. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing it, and I am very grateful for the contributions of other hon. Members. I will try to respond to all the points raised.
The Government stand in solidarity with those who are in prison solely because of their religious or other beliefs, and we call on Governments to ensure that the right to freedom of religion or belief is protected and promoted for all people everywhere. Societies that respect and uphold human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, are generally stronger, more stable and prosperous.
As many in the Chamber have articulated so eloquently, the scale of freedom of religion or belief abuses and violations globally is of grave concern. Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights states that
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.
However, the reality faced by many—including the Baha’i community in Yemen and Iran, the Ahmadis in Pakistan, the church members in Nicaragua who have been harassed and arbitrarily detained, and non-Muslims caught up in Sudan’s civil war—is far removed from that principle. Persecution, harassment, discrimination and arbitrary detention are sadly part of daily life for many.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and the spokesperson for His Majesty’s Opposition, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), both mentioned the current issue of Armenians in detention following the recent conflict with Azerbaijan. Annette Moskofian has had a few mentions, because she is such an ardent believer in freedom of religion or belief, and is the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton.
For those reasons, we are working hard to highlight and address the scale and severity of freedom of religion or belief abuses and violations, including by lobbying for the release of prisoners of conscience. I shall set out some examples. Lorenzo Rosales Fajardo, a pastor and leader of an independent church in Cuba, was imprisoned for participating in peaceful protests in that country. The Foreign Secretary wrote to him in December last year to express solidarity and called on the Cuban authorities to release him. We were delighted to hear that he was released in January. As the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, this must not be a counsel of despair; occasionally, we get good news in these cases.
Mubarak Bala has also been mentioned in this debate. A Nigerian atheist and president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, he was sentenced to 24 years for his belief. We regularly lobbied the Nigerian Government, including through letters to the Kano state governor and calls by Ministers for his release, and we were pleased to hear that he was also freed in January. Of course, there are many other examples, and I will try to set out what we are doing to support them.
The UK is determined to use its extensive diplomatic network to champion freedom of religion or belief on the international stage. As Members have mentioned, our human rights approach is being refreshed by the Minister for human rights in the other place, Lord Collins. He will come to Parliament in the usual way to set out that work when it is completed. I was very pleased to meet my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) earlier this week to discuss his role as the UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. To address the Bill proposing that we make that role statutory, while we recognise the benefits of the position, we do not believe that its value would be enhanced by making it statutory. As such, we will continue with the approach taken by the last Government under the excellent Fiona Bruce, maintaining the role as an office within the Foreign Office, but with a strong sense of challenge.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I welcome the tone in which this debate is being conducted. Given that the Minister will not make the special envoy’s role statutory, will she state very clearly that she will not make something else statutory—that she will not reintroduce a blasphemy law in the United Kingdom? She will recognise that the abolition of the blasphemy laws in the 1980s and 1990s meant that people could express whatever belief they happened to hold in a completely free way. That ended a level of oppression that had been possible, although not exercised for many years.
Will the Minister make absolutely clear that in no way will this Government support a blasphemy law, and that they will not allow police to introduce one through the back door by criminalising acts that would otherwise be covered by freedom of expression? Will she make absolutely clear that His Majesty’s Government stand for freedom of religion and non-belief, not just belief, and that that means the freedom to change one’s religion, to reject a previous religion, and to criticise any religion? Does she agree with that?
Catherine West
Of course I agree that freedom of religion or belief, or the right to have no belief at all, is critical and paramount. I know that organisations such as Index on Censorship, which the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) is part of, are very robust in that regard. It is crucial that we have the right to freedom of expression. On the finer points of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, if he would like to write to me, I will be very happy to write back using the particular language that he would prefer.
Nick Timothy
I was pleased by the Minister’s answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). If we are talking about freedom of expression internationally, we have to be incredibly careful about freedom of expression in our own country. While Ministers often say that they oppose blasphemy laws, we have seen section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 used to prosecute people for acts of protest, including damaging the Koran. Is this not, in reality, the development of a back-door blasphemy law?
Catherine West
I reiterate my position that we uphold freedoms. On the specific point that the hon. Gentleman would like me to fall into a trap on, if he would write to me so that I can get exactly the right language, I would be pleased to write back.
I want to pursue my point about the importance of this not being a counsel of despair, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West said. A couple of Members have mentioned the country of Vietnam this afternoon, and while there are a number of concerns—including some that I raised with Vietnam’s deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs on her recent visit to the UK, in the context of discussions on matters of bilateral interest— I was very pleased to read that there has been an 83% acceptance rate for the universal periodic review recommendations. I hope that Vietnam will be able to develop a national masterplan that specifies concrete, measurable and time-bound actions to follow up on those recommendations. We offer the expertise that we have within the Foreign Office, and stand ready to share our experience as we go on that journey together.
As I mentioned, the UK is determined to use its extensive diplomatic network, and the priorities of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland will become clear as he meets with each of the Ministers to lay out his concerns. With his background at the Bible Society, I know that he will have a lot in common with the hon. Member for Strangford, and I am sure that they will bring more debates to this House in future, continuing to challenge Ministers on these important matters.
To give another example, last week my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland and the Minister for the middle east and north Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), met the former prisoner of conscience Dr Nader al-Sakkaf, who was arbitrarily detained by the Houthis in 2016 for his association with the Office of the Public Affairs of the Baha’is of Yemen. They heard about his experience in Yemen, and discussed ways in which the Government could support him and other cases of this sort.
I also want to highlight the vital work of human rights defenders in addressing freedom of religion or belief abuses and violations, including arrests and arbitrary detention. As the Foreign Secretary said in his Human Rights Day speech in December last year,
“Human rights defenders around the world risk their liberty—and often their lives—for their belief in upholding fundamental human rights for all, through protesting, documenting human rights abuses, supporting political prisoners and standing up for democracy and justice.”
Without human rights defenders, we would not know the full scale of abuses and violations. I think of the tragic story this week of Viktoriia Roshchyna, a journalist whose body was returned without organs to her family following detention in Russia. I know that that will be of interest to the hon. Member for West Suffolk, given his association with the Index on Censorship—it is an absolutely tragic case. The UK is pleased to support important flexible funds such as Lifeline, which has provided almost 100 grants to civil society organisations under threat in over 30 countries since July 2024.
Turning to our bilateral engagements, the Government do not shy away from challenging countries that are not meeting their obligations. We continue to highlight our concerns, both publicly and in private. To give just one example, it is a central part of our work in Pakistan. My hon. Friend the Minister for the middle east and north Africa visited Pakistan in November last year, and was able to advocate for freedom of religion or belief with Government Ministers and business and religious leaders. High commission officials, including our political counsellor, regularly meet representatives from the Ahmadi, Christian, Hindu and Sikh communities.
We have followed the same approach with the Nigerian Government, including during Nigeria’s universal periodic review last year. We are investing £38 million through our strengthening peace and resilience programme in Nigeria to help address the root causes of conflict in the middle belt and beyond. That, in turn, builds the capacity of the country’s security forces to tackle violence against all civilian communities, including those of different religious backgrounds and beliefs.
On Syria, which is very much in the news this week, we have made it clear that the Government must ensure the protection of all civilians, set out a clear path to transitional justice and make progress towards an inclusive political transition. We will judge them by their actions. The shadow Minister asked how conditional our support was in trying to push for better human rights. I can guarantee that in the discussions about lifting sanctions in recent months following the ceasefire, we have discussed our vision for more freedoms for all the different groups in Syria.
Moving on to our multilateral work, at the UN we regularly participate in interactive dialogues with the special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. In March, our special envoy was in Geneva to engage in a session on the intersection between freedom of religion or belief and torture. Last October, we participated in the interactive dialogue in New York on the link between freedom of religion and peace. We frequently raise FORB during the UN’s universal periodic review process, such as in our statements on Bhutan, Nicaragua and Qatar last November. In the case of Nicaragua, we noted our increasing alarm at the deteriorating human rights situation. That includes the harassment and arbitrary detention of members of the Church and the closure of organisations affiliated with it. We continue to work closely with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe as well. It provides a valuable platform for us to discuss and consider freedom of religion or belief and related issues.
Many Members have mentioned article 18, from which the Article 18 Alliance takes its name. It is a coalition of 43 countries formed to defend and advance religious freedom globally. The hon. Member for Strangford is involved in that alliance. The UK is an active member and works closely to combat discrimination and persecution based on religion or belief. That includes highlighting specific cases of prisoners of conscience and co-sponsoring statements and campaigning for their release, such as the chair’s statement on Tibetan religious prisoners of conscience and Gedhun Choekyi Nyima. Linked to those important campaigns, we have worked closely with the Article 18 Alliance on statements that condemn FORB violations and promote mutual respect between different religions and belief groups. For example, in November last year, we joined an important statement that condemned anti-Muslim hatred and urged countries to uphold the right to freedom of religion or belief.
Before I conclude, there are a couple of points that I have not covered. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked about China, and I reassure him that we raise our concerns at the highest level. A number of people have mentioned one of our most high-profile prisoners of conscience, Jimmy Lai. Just this week, I met Sebastien Lai, and I discuss Jimmy’s progress and how he is getting on regularly with Sebastien’s constituency MP, who sits on our Benches. Our staff in Hong Kong attend the court regularly to watch every single element of that procedure. We are working hard to continue to keep that at the highest level, whether that is Prime Minister to President, Foreign Secretary to Foreign Minister, or me at ministerial level when I can.
The hon. Member also asked about the China audit, which I can confirm we will be bringing forward soon. Within that process, I have met Rahima Mahmut on the Uyghur situation. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there is ongoing concern about that, and I reassure him and others watching this debate that we have definitely looked at that subject and how it impacts on our day-to-day lives and business practices here in the UK.
Briefly on Iran, we know that Christians in Iran are persecuted. That includes the ethnic Armenian and Assyrian Christians who face political, economic and social barriers. They are entitled to freedoms as a formally protected minority, but they are often unable to practise their religion and are banned from preaching to other Iranians. Persian Christians and converts from Islam are considered apostates and face severe harassment, detention and lengthy prison sentences. Christians often face propaganda charges as a result of their religious activity. The UK is on the core group for the recurring Iran resolution led by Canada, which always includes language relating to freedom of religious belief and Christians. We are looking forward to the next UN 3C resolution, which will be tabled in November 2025.
We have had a very good debate, and I thank the House for its patience. To conclude, this Government remain committed to addressing the issues of prisoners of conscience and freedom of religion or belief. No one should suffer for their beliefs, and we will continue to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief at every opportunity.
Jim Shannon
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their participation in this debate on prisoners of conscience and the importance of faith and freedom of religion or belief. The persecution of religious minorities and human rights are married; if people are being hurt by persecution over religion, their human rights are being hurt, and vice versa. All Members are right to say that. Today this House has been a voice for the voiceless and offered hope for those with no hope.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), referred to never being silent when we see injustice, and he is right. We will not be silent in this House. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said that today will not be a counsel of despair. He and I, and many others in this Chamber, share a religious belief. He referred to prayer—pray every day; pray earnestly; pray fervently; pray often. He is right to say that, because that is what we should be doing.
I remind the House of the story of William Wilberforce, who often spoke in this House against slavery. There may be but a few of us here today, but remember: it only takes a few to make a change. William Wilberforce never saw the complete abolition of slavery in his time, but his actions made a difference. I thank all those who made a difference today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered prisoners of conscience.