Prisoners of Conscience
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(3 days, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West
The UK continues to support the visit by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and, through initiatives such as the voluntary principles on security and human rights, and the UK-Indonesia critical minerals MOU—signed off by you, Madam Deputy Speaker—the Government promote best practice on sustainability and respect for human rights.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I am delighted to hear that the Minister has been raising human rights concerns with the Government of Indonesia about critical minerals. Would she perhaps have a word with her colleague the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero about the human rights concerns over other critical minerals conversions in China? It is going into a green energy economy that is supposed to have environmental, social and governance accords, yet somehow or other it fails on all of those: it fails because of its coal-powered production, it fails because its products are made by socially undesirable slave labour—I hope she agrees about that—and it fails on governance because there is no oversight. Will she have those same conversations within her own Government?
Catherine West
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise those pressing concerns, and all will be revealed when the China audit comes forward with the specifics on his question.
Oral Answers to Questions
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
I recognise my hon. Friend’s long-standing interest in this issue and his strong views on it. Let me be clear. On 28 October, His Majesty’s ambassador to Georgia called on the Central Election Commission to transparently investigate all alleged incidences of election fraud. Following the session of the new Parliament, the embassy again reiterated our concerns about election violations and the need for independent investigation. He is absolutely right that the right to peaceful protest and a free civil society is a key attribute of any modern European democracy and must be respected. We will continue to make that clear.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I first pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), whose focus on Georgia—not just on free elections in Georgia, but on the spread of Putin’s evil influence across Europe—has been incredibly important. What actions is the Minister taking to push back on Russia’s influence in the region and to push back in Russia itself using his budget for the BBC World Service to broadcast in sub-national languages inside Russia, so that the people of Russia know what is being done in their name and can understand what Putin is doing to them?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to the important work the BBC World Service does in this area, in particular through its language services. I have in the past met its fantastic staff who do that important work. It is important that people have access to free, accurate and impartial information, including in their own languages. We have been clear about the extent of Russian interference in Georgia for a long time and we are clear about Russian interference across Europe in democracies. That is why we are working so closely with NATO and EU partners on that very issue.
British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations
Tom Tugendhat Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
On Thursday 3 October, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister and Mauritian Prime Minister Jugnauth made an historic announcement: after two years of negotiations and decades of disagreement, the United Kingdom and Mauritius have reached a political agreement on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory. The treaty is neither signed nor ratified, but I wanted to update the House on the conclusion of formal negotiations at the earliest opportunity.
Members will appreciate the context. Since its creation, the territory and the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia have had a contested existence. [Interruption.] In recent years, the threat has risen significantly. When we came into office, the status quo was clearly not sustainable. [Interruption.] A binding judgment against the UK seemed inevitable, and it was just a matter of time before our only choices would have been abandoning the base altogether or breaking international law.
Mr Speaker
Order. You will all be able to question the Secretary of State, so please just wait for that moment.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who chairs the all-party group on Gibraltar. We unequivocally support the right of both Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands to self-determination. I was pleased to see the Chief Minister come out categorically and put down some of the false statements that were being made last week.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
The old principle that we used to apply was the Wilson principle—the principle of self-determination—which the Foreign Secretary may remember is the defence of the Falkland Islands and the defence of Gibraltar. He has now just violated that principle by undermining the rights of the Chagossian people in favour of a claim that was abandoned in 1965—it was never really made because it was only administrative, and the islands were never properly governed from Mauritius anyway—and by being in favour of a Court judgment that was advisory, he has sold out the sovereignty of the British people. Truly, nobody apart from a boy called Jack has ever made a worse deal on the way to market, and he has come back with a handful of beans that he is trying to sell as a prize.
Mr Lammy
I have to say that I have always admired the right hon. Gentleman’s eloquence, but I have not always admired his principles. He was part of the last Government—