David Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Dec 2025 · Network Rail Timetable Changes: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I have a simple question for the hon. Gentleman, on this auspicious day of the Second Reading of the Railways Bill: would he characterise the fracturing of rail services in this country over the past 20 years, specifically in relation to timetabling, as a success for rural areas?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Network Rail Timetable Changes: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Network Rail Timetable Changes: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. He mentioned Berwick train station, which is in my constituency. Although the initial timetable change began in 2021, it is true that it has been brought in now. I want to highlight more regional travel. It is good to be working cross-border and cross-party on this issue. Does he agree that, at a review point hopefully coming up in the next few months, we should focus on Berwick’s burgeoning and developing night-time economy as well, and that it would be a shame to miss that opportunity for later evening and weekend trains?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to be speaking in support of a Government who have delivered a Labour Budget that has ended the child benefit cap. That benefits 1,150 children in my constituency. The Budget is tackling the cost of living by reducing household energy bills by £150 from next April. It is raising much-needed funds for our public services by increasing taxation on online gambling and on homes worth over £2 million—mansions—and it includes another rise in the national minimum wage. This is a Labour Budget with Labour values that will achieve so much. It will positively impact millions of lives, and I am proud to support it. It is with a heavy heart that I have to tell the Minister—this will come as no surprise to him—that the one thing I remain concerned about in the Budget is the overarching changes to inheritance tax for farmers. I am grateful to the Chancellor for listening to my concerns and those of my colleagues on the Back Benches, and for making an adjustment. The expansion of the transferability of inheritance tax allowances to widows retrospectively is welcome. It is a compassionate change, and it will allow widows to add their deceased spouse’s allowance to their own to benefit their children on their death. It is an effective doubling of their allowance, which is to be welcomed. However, I remain concerned about the long-term impact of the policy. In my constituency of North Northumberland, there are 710 farms, and over the past year I have met at least 90 farmers. I am not from a farming background, and this past year has been a steep learning curve for me, so I have been deeply moved by the generosity, respect and patience shown to me by farming constituents. They have opened their homes and lives to me, and they tell me that the inheritance tax status quo meant stability. Farm estates could transfer smoothly from one generation to another without their work being interrupted by lengthy processes. In addition to the allowance for transfers to widows, I urge the Government to consider an elderly farmer exemption, so that those surprised by this change in their old age can retire with dignity. One farmer recently wrote to me saying, “My father with his father and brothers worked to buy our farm. He wanted to pass that to me 10 years ago, the legal advice at that point was to do this on death. Now, at 80 years old, he has dementia, unable to make any decision on his own and his power of attorney (me) is unable to act on his behalf.” Agriculture has faced headwinds for many years, not least under the last Conservative Government; energy prices rocketed, and dodgy trade deals with Australia and New Zealand undercut farmers. They have also had to contend with unusually difficult weather patterns, whether it has been too hot, too dry or too wet. By 2029-30, the changes that we are talking about will have raised only £520 million. That sounds like a lot, but it is less than two days’ debt interest. In the light of widespread farming opposition to this policy, will the Government keep this policy under review in its first two years and, if the fears of farmers are established as facts, look to alter the policy accordingly? There is a better way forward. If we raise the threshold at which IHT kicks in, cut the relief for those above the threshold and delink agricultural property relief and business property relief, we can protect those who need protecting and invite those who can pay more to pay more. The Minister knows that the minimum share rule is just one example of that, and he may observe that this change would draw more estates into the policy. Although the number of estates brought into the policy under the minimum share rule may grow, those estates would by definition have larger assets that were less likely to be involved in a working farm, and that would therefore be more disposable. It is exceptionally hard out there for farmers, yet from the wee small hours to late at night, and without family holidays or long weekends, they put in the work to ensure that we all have food on the table. As one farmer said to me, “My childhood included no Christmas, home-made clothes and food grown from the veg plot. It was a frugal upbringing…Even now there is no lavishness. Holidays are scarce, the house roof leaks, windows aren’t fit for purpose and damp and mould prevails in the house. A private landlord can’t allow his tenants to live like this, but we accept these conditions. That’s ok”. They continued that the proposal “will bring a tax bill of £400,000. We are a modest hill farm. We cannot make this kind of profit in 20 years, never mind 10.” Most farmers farm not to become wealthy, but because it is a way of life. The Agriculture Act 1947, brought in by the Labour party, was the first great, sustained support for British farming. We have the opportunity to provide that support again. Farmers need us. They need stability, and they want a fairer system. There is still time to achieve that. In a £1.3 trillion budget, £520 million will not make a difference to our fiscal stability, but it would make all the difference in the world to the flourishing of British farming, including in North Northumberland.

• 24 Nov 2025 · HMP Downview: Female Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister may or may not be aware that prior to coming to this place, I ran a homelessness and support charity for the general population, including young women. It was always possible in that context, even as a charity, to find support and housing for transgender women, as well as to incorporate sex-segregated spaces for women, who had often gone through difficult experiences at the hands of biological males. Does she agree that it should always be possible, however it is done, to create provision in the prison estate for transgender women and for sex-segregated spaces?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Just over 20 years ago, in my red Vauxhall Corsa, I rounded the bend at the bottom of the Woodstock Road in Belfast and drove straight into a pregnant pause in the middle of a riot. To my left was a baying mob of young east Belfast men, and to my right was a baying mob of young men from the Short Strand. They were being kept apart by a British Army unit gathered around a group of armoured Land Rovers. As I buzzed my window down, I heard a crunch as my tires passed over the bricks and debris. The worry must have been written across my face. The pause in that moment was pregnant in more ways than one—above all because of my heavily pregnant wife sitting next to me in the passenger seat. She was managing her contractions with breathing exercises as I told the nearest soldier of our need to get to the hospital on the other side of town and, crucially, on the other side of the road. In that brief moment of relative calm, the soldier made a split-second decision and waved us through; I did not need further invitation. Before long, we were safe in the maternity wing of the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast. Later that day, our first child—our daughter—was born, and we have called her our Belle of Belfast city ever since. I will always be thankful for that soldier’s decision, but even more thankful that he and his colleagues were there that day to keep us safe in the first place. I had moved to Belfast four years earlier to begin my first proper job, running the Presbyterian Church in Ireland’s first ever youth peace and reconciliation programme. It was a new job, in a new city, in what seemed like a new Northern Ireland, just three years after the Good Friday agreement. It was a hopeful time; there was an appetite from the vast majority of the population to enter a new and peaceful era for that wee country. There was also a realisation that the horrors of the troubles had to be processed and dealt with by the individuals directly impacted, but also by Northern Irish society as a whole. Yet here we are, 20 years on from that moment, still talking about making a serious start on dealing with the legacy of the troubles. I can say with confidence that the legacy Act did not do that; it did not help with that legacy. For example, it meant that 200 military families were left in limbo, unable to pursue the truth of what happened to their loved ones. They were families like that of Mo Norton, whose brother Terence Griffin was killed in the M62 bus bombing in 1974. She said: “That morning, everything changed. Twelve lives were lost, including children. Our family was shattered. There was no warning, no chance to say goodbye. Just silence, and then years of unanswered questions. I need to know that Terence’s death has been fully investigated, I don’t think it has been properly investigated in the past.” Honourable soldiers follow the law and are glad to do so. That is what made my grandpa a good soldier, and it is what gives the British armed forces their outstanding reputation. As strange as it may sound, I am pleased that we are debating the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Today represents the possibility of a huge step forward. I believe in the bonds of these islands that we share—that is why I am a Unionist—but our relationship with the Republic of Ireland matters deeply. The joint framework of the Irish and UK Governments states: “The Governments recognise that legacy must be addressed across these islands as a whole”. I welcome that, but the challenge is that we need to hold on to reconciliation. Reconciliation is mentioned only once in the Bill, but we must hold on to the principle. Reconciliation is obviously hard. No one in Northern Ireland came out of the troubles completely untouched, and the pain can twist down the generations. Truth alone is not enough for a community to reconcile. There must be trust and a resetting of our relationships, and that does not happen without acknowledgement, without memorialisation and even, in some cases, without repentance. We need community spaces, moments and symbols that do that. We know that no one can make anyone else reconcile, and a Government certainly cannot. At the same time, however, Governments have the resources, the convening power and the cross-cutting responsibilities to empower and enable those moments, spaces and symbols that can foster social reconciliation. We saw that at the time of the late Queen’s visit to Dublin castle. I welcome that commitment, but we need more detail, and we need it more quickly. We need commitments from the other parties to this conflict, about whom we have not talked enough today—specifically the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association, and all other militant and terrorist groups. They need to make those commitments, and acknowledge what they did. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for this welcome legislation, which seeks truth. I simply urge him to think creatively and ambitiously about how the Government can now help to turn truth into genuine reconciliation and hope for Northern Ireland’s future.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and particularly for the commitment to new, safe, legal routes. There has been a lot of talk of morality, and there absolutely should be. This is too important to get wrong, so does she agree that tolerating a system where men, women and children are encouraged on to flimsy rubber boats to risk their life in the English channel, when they are already safe where they are, is not a moral choice?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Relief: Impact on Farmers · Hansard source

  More

  1. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the report by CenTax entitled, “The Impact of Changes to Inheritance Tax on Farm Estates” published on 14 August 2025.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Relief: Impact on Farmers · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud to support a Government who believe in progressive taxation, as I am sure the Minister does—that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden. Under the CenTax minimum share rule proposal, farm estates where at least 60% of the estate is used for farming would receive relief of up to £5 million per person. This would reduce the risk of family farms being broken up, place a greater burden on very large estates and those gaming the system, and double the forecast tax take. Will the Minister direct Treasury officials to take another look at the CenTax proposals on APR prior to the Budget?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Cross-border Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing this important debate—one that is very important to my constituents in North Northumberland. A constituent of mine recently visited friends in the north of the county, near the border with Scotland, and sadly suddenly collapsed with a brain tumour. He was taken across the border to a Scottish hospital. But this hospital, as we have heard, could not diagnose him because it could not access English medical records. Imagine the scene: this constituent’s wife is now filling in her husband’s records from scratch, over the phone, while he waits and waits for an MRI that he cannot get in Scotland because he is under the care of Northumberland healthcare trust. I am alarmed to realise that our country seems to have several invisible lines running through it. If someone has a stroke, heart failure or even a nasty cold on the wrong side of those lines, their illness and treatment come with strings attached. That is bad for my constituents and bad for our country. My constituents, like so many, live cross-border lives—that is just their reality. They move across the border all the time to see friends, to go shopping and to seek medical treatment. But as we have seen, if they take ill on the wrong side of the border, they will receive substandard treatment at times. That is not because there is anything wrong with the service of Scottish nurses or doctors—they are superb—but because they have no access to English medical records. There is no joined-up thinking. Northumbria NHS foundation trust recently tried to offer the services of a new infirmary in Berwick to patients on the Scottish side of the invisible line, but up to now there has been a lack of take-up or interest from NHS Borders—something I hope to see change. The primary-secondary care link is in a bit of a black box. Patients have no idea where they will be referred by their GP. Will it be Melrose, Cramlington or Newcastle? Who arranges the appointment determines which organisation provides the referral. It does not have to be this way. The technical solutions clearly exist, as we heard from the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, but the SNP Government in Edinburgh frankly have no incentive to make cross-border care work. I am sad to see no SNP Members here today. They are ideologically opposed to the choices that could lead to a cross-border, British healthcare system that serves all British people equally. It is worse than that. I was recently contacted by a young constituent who lives in North Northumberland, in the north of England, and works in the Scottish Ambulance Service. They hope to take up further training in Scotland so that they can continue employment, but the Scottish funding support will not cover them because they are not Scottish, and the English support will not cover them because they want to study in Scotland. A British student who wants to study at a British university in order to save British lives cannot do so. That is a farcical situation. This is the reality for many of my constituents. We must get better at joining the dots and realising that real people live holistically in the geography of where they are, which should not be determined by what are, in British terms, invisible lines on the map. If that is the situation now, imagine the mess for healthcare if the SNP were successful in its policy of independence. Because of bad cross-border healthcare my constituents are suffering, and the Union that so many of us cherish is suffering too.

• 3 Nov 2025 · “Soldier F” Trial Verdict · Hansard source

  More

  Some quarter of a million people served in Operation Banner, and the vast majority did so with great distinction and huge bravery, leading to the peace that we see in Northern Ireland today. The number of prosecutions of Army veterans is vanishingly small, so will the Secretary of State join me in thanking those veterans for their service and condemn the rhetoric that at times is coming from Conservative Members, which is unnecessarily stoking fear among those veterans?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  As we have heard, about a quarter of a million civilians, including 130,000 children, are trapped in the city of El Fasher, following a brutal siege that has lasted 18 months. This is a critical moment amidst the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan. What can the UK Government do, with our allies, to ensure that we get humanitarian exit routes out of El Fasher for those civilians?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  Three hundred of my constituents signed the petition. SEND is a major issue in North Northumberland and, over the summer, 130 families completed a consultation that I carried out on the issue. I will share the information with the Secretary of State in due course. The conclusion was unanimous: the system has to change. Let me share three points that those families would want me to share. First, the EHCP process is complicated and isolating. Only 6% of respondents described it as “very positive”. Parents said that the majority of EHCPs granted on the first application took over 30 weeks to be completed. Secondly, a persistent theme was that there was a lack of teacher and staff understanding of how to support pupils with ADHD or autism. Schools are reluctant to acknowledge needs until a crisis point is reached. One respondent said: “It took for my child to have a breakdown” and “get medically signed off before they listened”. Our overstretched teachers do not have the capacity to manage, and they need support and training. Thirdly, perhaps most concerning is the increase in non-school attendance. Some 25% of the parents who responded to my consultation said that they had home-schooled their children for a time due to a lack of suitable provision. This is not just a SEND crisis; it is a crisis of trust between families and parents, and teachers and local authorities. It is a crisis that has been a decade in the making, and our children are growing up bearing the consequences. That is why I welcome the fact that the Government are tackling the issue head on. The Conservative party watched the SEND crisis destroy families, yet was unable to fix it, while Reform seems to think that children who need support are just badly behaved. But parents in North Northumberland are desperate for their children to thrive. They are desperate for someone to listen to their children and to them. That is why I look forward to the reform of the system that the Government will shortly introduce.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests · Hansard source

  More

  I abhor the methods of Palestine Action, and indeed any violence in the course of protest, but I understand that four groups have been de-proscribed in the last 20 years. I am sure that the aim is for all banned groups to de-escalate and become legitimate protest groups, so what steps or evidence would be required for Palestine Action to be de-proscribed in the future?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the leadership that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East showed over the summer in their visit to Syria and in engaging with the Syrian Government, especially on the violence that took place in Suwayda. As UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, I was particularly worried to see that the violence especially affected the Druze and Christian minorities in that country. What more can we do to work with the Syrian Government to ensure that they protect all their citizens, regardless of their religion?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Leader of the House will agree that grassroots community football clubs, such as North Sunderland and Berwick Rangers in my constituency, play a vital role in the development of elite footballers, such as Lucy Bronze, who hopefully tonight will go “Supersonic” in her game for the Lionesses in the quarter-finals of the Euros. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating players such as Lucy Bronze, who started out at another football club in my constituency, Alnwick Town, and grant a debate in Government time on how we can ensure that the money from elite football gets to grassroots football to develop the Lucy Bronzes of the future?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the role of freedom of religion or belief in UK foreign policy. It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and to all colleagues who have joined me to discuss this urgent, important and powerful subject. A great number of Members who have sponsored my debate are unable to attend because of pressing considerations, and I therefore give honourable mentions to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and to the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—as well as to the many Members who have showed up. This is a cross-cutting and cross-party issue, and I hope the debate can go ahead in that spirit. Last week, I launched the Government’s new freedom of religion or belief—FORB—strategy at the Foreign Office. It is a bold strategy that is good for Britain, and I will talk more about it in a moment, but I want to start with my own experience of championing FORB, which started long before the Prime Minister asked me to be the UK special envoy last December. Growing up, my parents were involved in supporting Christian Mission to the Communist World. That included, as glasnost took root in the late 1980s, boarding ships that had docked in Scotland from the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc so that my parents could meet the sailors and share their faith. Those sailors had often never heard of Jesus Christ, or for that matter Mohammed, the Buddha or any other belief system except communism. Also, as a young boy, I met countless Christians who had been imprisoned, tortured and persecuted, especially those from behind the iron curtain, simply for what they believed. That made a huge impact on me—the fact that we can never take this freedom for granted in our world. Sadly, as we will hear today, we still cannot. The new Government strategy is for people like those Soviet sailors—people who are trapped and punished by systems that deny them the freedom to choose what they do or do not believe. That is why FORB is and should be at the very heart of UK foreign policy. It is about our values as a country, and the right to believe and practise one’s beliefs openly. It is something we can stand for in the world.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy · Hansard source

  More

  In my six months in this role as envoy, a repeated refrain has been that we must not forget the Uyghur Muslims of Xinjiang. I was very pleased to take part in an all-party parliamentary group meeting with human rights champions from Xinjiang in the last few weeks. The hon. Member is right: we must ensure that our procurement as a country and our approach to international economics and business does not in any way buttress the oppression of the many Uyghurs in China. The second point of the strategy is to build bilateral relationships, and I will say more on a moment on the countries I will focus on. The third strand is international coalitions of collective action, so that we can work together with the coalition of the willing. There are some countries that are more engaged in freedom of religion or belief than others, and we want to work with those who are passionate about this issue. We are proud to be, for example, members of the Article 18 Alliance and the International Contact Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief, and we will continue to double down on those relationships. The fourth of the five strands is about weaving support for FORB throughout the Government’s human rights agenda and foreign policy, because FORB is an acid test for the health of other human rights. That means bolstering our efforts to increase awareness and understanding of FORB within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and across Government, as well as ensuring that tools, training and research are available to staff. I will report annually on that work, including at the highest levels of Government. Finally, the fifth strand is about working with civil society and religious groups because, frankly, a lot of the time they know what is happening on the ground even better than our posts and diplomatic missions around the world do. We need to try and draw them in and rely on what they are telling us. From sharing information to fostering understanding and respect between different religious or belief communities on the ground, civil society and religious group engagement is central to the protection and promotion of FORB. We will focus our bilateral engagement on 10 specific countries, chosen for their historical or geographical links that place the United Kingdom in a special position of influence; because we believe that there is a potential to make a difference now; and because of their place on the Pew Research Centre index, in terms of high levels of FORB persecution. Those countries are, in alphabetical order, Afghanistan, Algeria, China, India, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, Ukraine and Vietnam. This is an ambitious strategy. It places a high level of confidence in our country’s ability to seek justice around the world. It requires buy-in from Government, from parliamentarians, from civil society and from religious groups. It will need resource allocation and, more importantly, it will need support. It will need this place to champion it at a time when sometimes voters are increasingly concerned with problems closer to home. It will require Government to own, centre and adequately resource it, and to know that the cost of failure is high. This strategy could lead not just to freedom for millions around the world, but to a flourishing here in the UK. I believe that strong support for freedom of religion or belief around the world could be both a blessing to the world and a blessing to the United Kingdom. We use quite dry words such as “strategy”, but in the end I think this is about a blessing. I remember, in a previous life, marching years ago on the G8 at Gleneagles for international debt relief; it seemed an impossible dream at the time, but we got it. I remember working in my first job, which was on peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, and wondering whether the Good Friday/Belfast agreement would hold, but it held. I remember working more recently, housing homeless people who had spent years on the street, and wondering whether they could rebuild their lives, but they did. Britain has a remarkable capacity to deliver good things. We have the wealth, the expertise and cultural generosity to turn bad into good, both locally and internationally. In other countries, that does not always happen. There are not many places where social conflict turns into lasting peace. It would be a thankless waste of centuries of history and democracy to turn away from those abroad who desperately need us. In the contemporary climate, the temptation is to raise the drawbridge and focus our efforts only at home but, if we direct some of our generosity outwards, we will store up blessings not only in other countries, but for ourselves. There is something profoundly life-giving about sharing what we have with others. We need think only about Bosnia, Kosovo and Sierra Leone to recall some of the positive impact that this country has made in the past 20 years. Promoting FORB revitalises our national story, challenges our darker impulses and creates a future to work towards. That is the role of FORB in Britain’s foreign policy—not as a policy, but as a blessing for those who need and deserve freedom. The persecuted need us. We can help them, and in doing so we will positively shape Britain and the world’s future for generations to come.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mrs Harris—I am mindful of the time. I thank all Members for the spirit of the debate. I mentioned earlier that this is a cross-party issue, and that was evident here today. I thank the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) for his role in shaping this work. I also place on the record my thanks to Fiona Bruce, the former Member for Congleton, who created a great foundation for this work. I also thank Members for the breadth of the debate. I did not think we would get into 1,000-year-old Icelandic features, but that was fantastic and a great surprise. The key thing the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), said was that this is an immense responsibility; I emphasise that it is an immense responsibility for all of us, whether across the world with all our partners or across this place. Once again, I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate and has stood—and will stand—for freedom of religion or belief. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the role of freedom of religion or belief in UK foreign policy.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for that point, for his work as Foreign Secretary to bring about the role that I now inhabit, and for his focus on freedom of religion or belief. I agree—I will come on to say more about this—that we should be humble yet bold about what we can offer with our values and should not shy away from these issues because of perceived political correctness or whatever it may be. It is easy to talk about principles such as freedom, human rights, respect, tolerance or justice, but it is far harder to live up to their meaning in our actions. The history of this country, however, is one in which we have worked hard to create a plural society based on those values. We do not always get it right, but I am proud that in the UK today, we are free to practise our religion or belief without fear of persecution. My constituency of North Northumberland is home to worshipping communities that stretch back to Saxon times. My constituents have precious freedoms—too precious not to share. That is what the strategy is about. The world needs FORB, and Britain is uniquely placed to champion it. Championing FORB will be good for Britain too. Let me talk about the need and situation in the world at the moment. Most Members are well aware of the challenges we face, but some facts bear repeating. According to the Pew Research Centre, the number of countries with high or very high levels of Government restrictions on FORB is at its highest level since 2007. At the community level, social hostilities involving religion are also on the rise, further reducing respect for human rights in general and FORB in particular. For example, according to the charity Open Doors, 380 million Christians are persecuted worldwide because of their faith. Persecution on the basis of religion or belief, whether by states or social groups, is taking place on every continent in the world. It involves social ostracism, police harassment, arbitrary detention, denial of citizenship, assault, destruction of sites of religious worship, torture and killings. In Pakistan, Ahmadiyya Muslims are not recognised as Muslims by the state, and their mosques have repeatedly been desecrated by extremist groups. In Iran, the Baha’i are acutely vulnerable to scapegoating, incitement and threats of violence from state authorities. In North Korea, those seeking to exercise their right to freedom of religion or belief face surveillance and arbitrary detention, with Christians and others treated as political criminals if their faith is discovered. Those are not niche issues. FORB is central to the problems of the world today. Horrific acts, such as the murder of worshippers in a church in Damascus last month, are not only attacks on people for what they believe in, but attempts to destabilise societies and spread division. FORB demonstrates the core principle that human rights are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Those who have no freedom to worship have no freedom of assembly. Those who have no freedom of belief have no freedom of conscience. Those who have no freedom to share their faith have no freedom of speech. Those who have no freedom to practice their faith or belief are not equal in dignity and rights. Those sound like obvious principles, but we must humbly remember that our own country took many centuries to discern them. For many long, sometimes shameful, periods of our own history we were better known as religious persecutors ourselves, oppressing those who did not believe in whichever strand of Christianity was ascendant at the time. We approach the rest of the world as a country that has erred and learned and that wants other nations to avoid our own mistakes. Countries that respect FORB and where all constituent communities can flourish are more stable, more secure and more prosperous. So to the strategy. The Government have formally made a new commitment to the centrality of FORB in their foreign policy, and I am delighted to be a small part of that through my role as the envoy. FORB will play its own distinctive part in our foreign policy. There are two top-line aims of that approach. The first is simply to reduce the number of countries in which the right to FORB is significantly curtailed, and the second is to promote FORB internationally as essential to human flourishing. There are five strands to the strategy. The first is engagement with multilateral institutions and forums to maintain collective support for FORB around the world. I am very proud that the UK has a history of championing FORB within the international rules-based order—something that seems to be under attack a lot of the time at the moment—not least as an original supporter of the universal declaration of human rights in 1948 and of the international covenant on civil and political rights in 1966. We will continue to work with international partners to take country-specific action where appropriate, whether through the UN’s universal periodic review process or by promoting FORB in multilateral resolutions. That strand underpinned, for example, my visit to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva just two weeks ago to give the UK Government statement on the right of Tibetan Buddhists, and not the Chinese Communist party, to determine the succession of the Dalai Lama. The second strand of our approach is bilateral engagement with countries where we feel we can make a difference.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  I have to declare, having set up another peacemaking programme in Northern Ireland myself and done a master’s degree in reconciliation studies, that the legacy Act was very much not a South African-style truth and reconciliation commission. The right hon. Member is talking about the equating of terrorists on one hand and our armed forces on the other; I simply ask, what would he say to victims on how they could pursue justice under the legacy Act as was?