Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab) [R]
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.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for the brilliant job he is doing as our religious freedom envoy, which has support across the House. Does he agree that for all sorts of reasons, including political correctness and a worry about being seen to be glorifying our imperial history, our foreign policy has not done enough on freedom of religion and belief, but that countries that start to erode religious freedoms soon erode other freedoms as well, which is why it is vital that we redouble our efforts?
David Smith
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.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for the brilliant, nuanced speech that he is making about our role and its importance. Does he agree with me and with Amnesty International that there are more than 1 million Muslim Uyghurs in prison camps in the Xinjiang region of China, and that we can work effectively by ensuring that products made in that region, for example cotton, do not find their way on to the high streets in this country?
David Smith
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.
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to make a speech. When making speeches and interventions, Members should be aware that I will start the wind-ups at 2.28 pm. I call the Father of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), for securing this important debate and for all his work. The Prime Minister obviously made an excellent choice.
Freedom of religion or belief should be the cornerstone of the United Kingdom’s foreign policy to ensure the rights of minorities around the world, in compliance with our obligations under the United Nations declaration of human rights. As has been said, nations with high levels of religious liberty and tolerance are more stable than those that oppress people who wish only to worship in peace.
I wish to focus on an issue that I raised a few weeks ago in the main Chamber at Church Commissioners questions: the plight of the Christians in Taybeh in the west bank and the violence from extremist settlers who are seeking to remove them from their land. I dedicate my speech to Mike Huckabee, Mr Trump’s choice as the United States ambassador to Israel, who is an evangelical pastor. He is also a strong supporter of these extremist settlers. The vast majority of our friends in Israel—the peaceful citizens of Israel—are totally opposed to the actions of these extremist settlers in the west bank.
Taybeh is an ancient village in the Holy Land, in the occupied west bank. In biblical times, it was known as Ephraim, which according to John’s gospel is the village where Christ went before his passion. It is now the last and only Christian-majority town in the west bank. It is under attack as we speak. Cardinal Pizzaballa, who is the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, the Greek Orthodox patriarch and other heads of churches in Jerusalem visited Taybeh on Monday following the recent violence. I place on record my thanks to the British consul general in Jerusalem, who accompanied the clergy on their mission to highlight to the world the plight of Taybeh.
In the ruins of the church of St George, the assembled clergy issued a statement, saying that
“radical Israelis from nearby settlements intentionally set fire near the town’s cemetery and the Church of Saint George”—
intentionally set fire to a church—
“which dates back to the 5th century. Taybeh is the last remaining all-Christian town in the West Bank. These actions are a direct and intentional threat to our local community first and foremost, but also to the historic and religious heritage of our ancestors and holy sites.”
Taybeh’s Roman Catholic parish priest, Father Bashar Fawadleh, told the Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need that following the latest violence the Israeli authorities were called twice for assistance, but no one came.
With others, I went to the west bank this year, and we saw that extremist settlers are acting with impunity and not being reined in or called in by Israeli authorities. As I say, the attackers were able to behave with impunity. Father Bashar’s concerns were shared by the leaders of the churches, who called for greater accountability as they said:
“Even in times of war, sacred places must be protected. We call for an immediate and transparent investigation into why the Israeli police did not respond to emergency calls from the local community and why these abhorrent actions continue to go unpunished.”
As well as the violence that erupted, the intolerable situation is made all the worse by settlements continuing to encroach on Taybeh’s land, with illegal grazing and land seizures affecting the livelihood of the local Christians. These extremist settlers have attacked homes, started fires and even created a billboard outside Taybeh that, translated into English, said, “There is no future for you here”. These are people who are only trying to live in peace. They have lived there for 2,000 years, yet they are told, “There is no future for you here”. It is absolutely outrageous and the whole world should be calling it out.
Father Bashar said that illegal cattle grazing in the olive groves risked the harvest’s failing, creating poverty among the Christian community. The heads of churches in Jerusalem are clear:
“The attacks by the hands of settlers against our community, which is living in peace, must stop, both here in Taybeh and elsewhere throughout the West Bank. This is clearly part of the systematic attacks against Christians that we see unfolding throughout the region.”
There are of course similar acts of intimidation and violence against our Muslim brothers in town after town in the west bank. It is absolutely intolerable.
As part of the UK’s diplomatic efforts, we must be willing to be firm with our friends and allies when they are behaving contrary to international law. Christians have been present in the Holy Land since the passion of our Lord, and they have the right to live in peace in the west bank. It is imperative that the UK Government make it clear to the Israeli authorities that this intimidation and violence must end. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me about what discussions the UK Government have had with the Israeli authorities on this issue, and what steps are being taken to stress the need to protect all religious communities in the west bank.
The situation in Gaza is even more dire. Father Gabriel Romanelli is looking after 500 Christians gathered in and around the Holy Family church in Gaza City. Food is being rationed and other supplies are scarce. Death has become routine. There was an 11-week period when all outside aid was halted completely by the Israel Defence Forces. Aid has reached the Christians in Gaza only intermittently through the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and Aid to the Church in Need. Much of the Gaza strip has been flattened.
On Tuesday, I hosted the Channel 4 film on the suffering of medics in Gaza. What is going on in Gaza is absolutely appalling—it is the greatest humanitarian disaster and catastrophe in the world today. Israel seems to have no plan for the future that it is willing to reveal to anybody. No one disagrees that Hamas is an evil organisation that must be destroyed completely, but clearly innocent people are being made victims as well. It is the innocence of the victims of the atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023 that is so appalling. Why compound those atrocities by committing more in revenge? I hope that all people in the middle east can at last live in peace and prosperity.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this important debate. Religious persecution is not confined to any one group, belief or country. It is a global issue that threatens the fundamental right to freedom—the right to believe or not to believe as we choose, free from violence and repression.
I am lucky to represent Morecambe and Lunesdale, which is home to over 40 churches that stretch across our towns and villages from the north-east in Sedbergh right down to Heysham. Although I do not have any faith, I often find myself in churches talking to my constituents. Through countless conversations, I know that my constituents want people across the world to hold the same freedom that they do: to practise religion or to follow no faith at all; to believe as they choose; and to live without fear because of it. In one of those conversations, my constituent, a member of the Heysham Free Methodist church, brought to my attention the persecution of Christians in India, a topic that I have discussed in this Chamber before.
I want to look at the bigger picture and what happens when the state holds up one religion over another or turns a blind eye to faith or belief-based persecution. As a humanist, I am only too aware of the horrors of persecution based on faith or lack of faith, a threat that is made worse when it is state-sanctioned or state-permitted. Persecution on the grounds of faith or belief is not isolated; it is systemic, systematic and global. Government restrictions on freedom of religion or belief are now at their highest level since 2007. From the Baha’i in Iran to the Uyghurs in China, people across the world are not free to express their closely held beliefs or to practise their faith or lack of faith freely.
Those systems of persecution exist on a scale. It is not the case that people are either totally free or not free at all—it is not binary. Blasphemy laws exist in 91 nations on this earth, including in Northern Ireland, and they affect 57% of the global population. In 12 countries, a person can still be given the death penalty for blasphemy, and in 60 others, they could end up in prison. State enforcement of religious beliefs, whether explicit or de facto, is an affront to human rights and our democratic ideals. If we are not free to believe or not believe, we are not equal in dignity and rights.
Human rights laws are there to protect people from discrimination, violence and harm, but they protect people, not ideas. Freedom of thought includes the right to question, to doubt and to disagree without the threat of punishment. State-enforced or state-backed religion suffocates freedom of expression or belief, and religious freedom is not just for the religious. Freedom of belief is the bedrock of any free society.
I want to call particular attention to the persecution of those who hold no faith, a reality that often, unfortunately, goes unrecognised. In 2022, the president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, Mubarak Bala, was sentenced to 24 years in prison for a Facebook post that was deemed to be blasphemous. He was recently released after an extensive appeal and campaign, having served two years in detention, where he was denied legal counsel, medical care and contact with his family. I am very pleased to say that Mubarak is now safe in Germany, and I had the honour of meeting him earlier this year when he joined us remotely at the all-party parliamentary humanist group, which I chair.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am not sure whether the hon. Lady knows this—she probably does—but the deputation to Nigeria went through the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief. We approached the Minister responsible and put forward a case for the release of Mubarak Bala, and I believe that we can take some credit for that intervention, along with many others, to ensure that his freedom was assured.
Lizzi Collinge
I thank the hon. Gentleman and all the other people involved; I believe that was part of Mubarak’s release and I am very grateful for it, as I am sure are Mubarak and his family. His story reminds us that non-religious belief can be just as dangerous as religious belief in the eyes of a repressive state.
I want to pay special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland for his work as the UK’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. The framework he introduced earlier this month sets out a really clear vision for the UK’s global leadership on this issue. It rightly focuses diplomatic efforts on 10 priority countries and on work through international bodies to build the long-term partnerships we need to drive change. As a Labour Government, we champion human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, not only because it is in our national interest to support an international rules-based order, but because it is simply the right thing to do. Those are not abstract ideals; they are the foundations of this Government’s mission and of any free society.
The evidence backs that approach. Countries that protect the rule of law and fundamental freedoms tend to be more stable, prosperous and resilient. When we share and support those values abroad, we help to build stronger international partners, and that contributes to the UK’s security, growth and development. We know that achieving that will be complex, and the plan recognises that we must work with other Governments, civil society and multilateral institutions to find common ground and deliver real change.
Producing real, on-the-ground change takes flexibility. In some cases, progress will come from bold commitments and public statements. In others, it will come through private discussions and quiet diplomacy. This is an approach guided by partnership and shared learning, working towards the shared goal of securing freedom of belief for everyone, everywhere.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for the role that he has taken on and the work ahead of him, which he has set out. The whole Chamber and the whole of Parliament will agree that the tone and manner with which he is approaching this complicated and difficult work will serve him and our country very well. As I suspect he would be happy to acknowledge, he is building on the legacy of his predecessor Fiona Bruce, the former Member for Congleton, who did so much to fill the role and build credibility for the United Kingdom across the globe.
The envoy is at the centre of a web of relationships with great people in this country who do so much to champion the input and the enthusiasms of our constituents across the United Kingdom and motivate us as MPs to raise these matters in the House of Commons. One of them is Merv Thomas, the president and founder of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, who said to me recently that he is always being told that religion is the cause of so many problems in the world. He said, “Well, I look at it this way: freedom of religious belief is perhaps one of the solutions.” That gets to the heart of what the role is about.
I am grateful to the envoy for setting out how his work will fit with the different elements of the Government’s foreign policy. That is critical. When we talk about matters such as national security and stability, trade and economic partnerships, the leadership role that we seek, the alliance building and the soft power that comes from being present in conversations about preventing humanitarian crises, we need to recognise that we gain a lot more credibility if we can be collaborative but principled and persistent in our willingness to engage on all those matters and able to have difficult conversations with countries with which we have relationships across those realms.
It is not a binary question; it is not that we cannot talk about what is happening with the Uyghur Muslims in China while recognising that China is an important economic actor in the world that needs to be respected. We need to find ways of interacting well together and respecting, as far as we can, what common ground exists. It troubles me sometimes that when we have statements in the House, we revert to a binary: “It’s all good or it’s all the opposite.” The hon. Member for North Northumberland grasps the right way to approach this.
Having said that, I want to put on the record some challenges that exist in a number of countries and some of the awful circumstances that people of minority religions in those countries endure. In North Korea, authorities are likely to round up the extended family of Christians and punish them, even if the family members themselves are not Christian. That is what Christians endure. Let us remind ourselves that according to Open Doors, another excellent organisation, there are 400,000 Christians in that country.
It is very sensible that the envoy has set out a priority list of 10 countries, because we want to be able to measure progress, make an impact and influence those relationships. In Pakistan, blasphemy is punishable by death. If Christians are subject to accusations of blasphemy, it can result in torture or death at the hands of violent mobs. Christian and Hindu girls remain particularly vulnerable to forced religious conversion, abduction, trafficking, child, early and forced marriage, domestic servitude and sexual violence. It is important that the envoy is able to work with his colleagues and Ministers in the Foreign Office, even if it is awkward or inconvenient. Sometimes, perhaps, officials on a certain desk will say, “We don’t really need to be too explicit about the religious element.” We do. That religious element is fundamental to the oppression that is happening.
Importantly, in his speech last week, the hon. Member said:
“The fourth strand of our approach is…ensuring that FORB considerations are mainstreamed throughout the FCDO’s work and the need for a holistic human rights approach understood.”
I totally recognise that there needs to be a holistic human rights approach, because of course not everyone has religious belief, but it is important not to lose clarity on the motivation behind some of the oppression that exists in some of these countries.
Finally, as a country and in our national Parliament, we need to think through how we treat our Christian faith. We should be more open about how it motivates and influences us. The more transparent we are about it, the more reasoned and reasonable we can be in dealing with the implications for how we approach public policy. I lament the way it can be weaponised. It should not be. The hon. Member is very open about his Christian faith, as I am about mine. It was wonderful to see an envoy giving a speech, reading from a press release, but quoting from Proverbs 31. I wish him well in his role, I thank him for what he has set out today, and I urge him to be bold and courageous in all that he does.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this debate and for his work on this important issue. I would like to share two personal reflections that shape the way I view religious freedom and its place in our foreign policy.
The first reflection is on my lifelong faith. Between my mother’s deep Christian belief and spiritualism and my Church of England education, it seems I never stood much chance of avoiding belief altogether. Truth be told, I have never wanted to. I do not attend church nearly as often as I should, a failing I feel guilty about often, but I know without hesitation that when I need comfort or clarity, my faith—God, Jesus—is always there to support me.
The second reflection is on my heritage. I am half-Icelandic on my mother’s side and was raised with an acute awareness of my Viking roots. Iceland is a small nation of under 400,000 people. Some families, mine included, can trace their lineage back for more than a millennium. One notable ancestor is Thorgeir of Lightwater, a pagan chieftain and lawspeaker who in the year 1000 was tasked with an impossibly difficult decision: which religion Iceland would adopt. He spent a day and a night under a fur blanket in silent reflection—something that I have found myself tempted to do after reading social media commentary—and when his deliberation ended he declared that Iceland would adopt Christianity. Remarkably, he also decreed that individuals could continue to worship privately however they chose. Although that fell short of what today we would call full religious liberty, it was extraordinarily liberal for its time, and it avoided a bloody civil war between pagan and Christian factions.
Thorgeir’s story offers a sobering lesson: that belief is ultimately personal, that law cannot mandate conviction, and that practical compromise can safeguard peace. These are precisely the kinds of lesson that our foreign policy ought to embrace. Religious freedom is advanced when our diplomats, Ministers and civil servants understand the profound role that religion, religious practices and faith communities play in the societies we engage with abroad. In a UK political landscape that is largely secular, we must take care not to overlook the power of religion to drive development, mediate conflict and shape political identity.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that the UK’s credibility on promoting religious freedom abroad is significantly undermined by the deep cuts to official development assistance, which have reduced our ability to fund vital human rights and civil society work in fragile states where freedom of religion or belief is most at risk?
Markus Campbell-Savours
I do agree, and that is a difficult one for me as a Labour Member. All I can say is that I will hold my Government’s feet to the fire on ensuring that we return to levels of overseas development assistance, which I recognise is an important contribution that we make internationally.
More than 80% of the world’s population affiliates with a religion. It is not, as some might cynically suggest, outdated or incompatible with democracy; it is a source of meaning, resilience and moral guidance to billions and, when understood and respected, a powerful partner in foreign policy. Faith-based organisations such as Christian Aid, World Vision, Muslim Aid and Tearfund play indispensable roles in delivering services, particularly to vulnerable communities. Those organisations are motivated by faith and supported by global communities who believe in their mission. Faith leaders have also played critical roles in human rights advocacy: from the South African Council of Churches opposing apartheid to Catholic resistance against dictatorship in Latin America and eastern Europe, their moral leadership has often been decisive in confronting injustice.
While we advocate for religious freedom, we must also confront the painful realities of religious persecution across the world. Minorities are facing forced conversion, violence, economic marginalisation and, in extreme cases, genocide. We cannot afford to ignore that. Let us name the suffering: the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, Bahaʼi in Iran, Shia Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Ahmadis and Hazara in Pakistan, Muslims in India, Yazidis in Syria, Christians in China, faith groups across North Korea, the Palestinians. These are not isolated incidents; they are affronts to our shared humanity.
If the UK is serious about advancing freedom of religious belief, we must integrate religious literacy into our diplomatic toolbox. We must build partnerships that respect faith identities, amplify marginalised voices and place human dignity at the core of our development, humanitarian and peacebuilding strategies. Let us reaffirm our role as global advocates for religious freedom, not just in principle, but in policy and practice. I add that I shall, of course, inform Hansard how to spell “Thorgeir”.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, and I thank the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) for his personal story. I thank the Labour party and the Prime Minister in particular for appointing the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) to his position as special envoy, a role that Fiona Bruce played when she was in Parliament. The hon. Member knows this, because I said it to him on the day he was appointed: I believe wholeheartedly that our God has placed him in that position for a purpose, just as he did with Fiona Bruce.
I have some 74 churches in my constituency, of different denominations and with different religious affiliations. Every time we have a debate or a question in the Chamber on freedom of religion, I ensure that those 74 churches have a copy of Hansard to inform them, because they want to know what is happening. The same thing will happen after this debate. It is always an honour to rise in the House to speak not only about policy, but about principle. Today I rise to speak on a subject close to my heart and central to our shared humanity: the role of freedom of religion or belief in UK foreign policy.
It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in her place—not just because she is a good Minister, but because she gives us the answers. I very much look forward to what she will do. Yesterday, in the urgent question in the Chamber on Sudan, she was there to give encouragement to the Christians in Sudan who have been persecuted, massacred and butchered. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), in his place; I look forward to his contribution too.
The United Kingdom has long prided itself on being a champion of human rights. Yet at the heart of every proud tradition lies a truth we must never forget: freedom of religion or belief—FORB—is not a luxury; it is a foundational liberty. Therefore, it is core to our very beliefs, what we as a society should be trying to promote and what the Minister and the Government need to put in place. It is the right not just to worship freely, but to live without fear, coercion or discrimination on account of one’s faith or conscience. That right transcends borders, politics and creeds, and our foreign policy must reflect that. I welcome the stage that this is at and the direction that it is going. I believe that it can point us in the necessary direction. I declare an interest as the chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, through which I have had the opportunity on many occasions to see at first hand the consequences when that freedom is denied.
I see Mervyn Thomas in the Public Gallery. Mervyn and I went to Egypt around 2012 or 2013. We had the chance to meet President el-Sisi, who promised us, as Mervyn will recall, the pluralistic society that we hoped would come about in Egypt. Obviously, we took him at his word—it was very impressive to meet the President in his palace—but we had the chance to go back there a short time ago, and that pluralistic society that President el-Sisi promised for Egypt is now taking place.
In Cairo we had the opportunity to meet the bishop, as well as Father Abraham, Father Paul and Youssef Samir of the evangelical church, which is attended by 1,800 on a Sunday morning. When was the last time that anyone here was in a church with more than 200 people? I just pose that question. There are 600 children who attend that church in the middle of Cairo. It is a Muslim country, but it has a pluralistic society. Is that the work of President el-Sisi? Yes, partially, but it is also the work of God, and we have to recognise where that is all coming from.
People have opportunities that they did not have before. They are building a new church. President el-Sisi, who is a Muslim, opened a mosque in Cairo; he asked, “When are you opening a Protestant church?” I say that we have lots of negative stories across the world, but we have to remember that God is working across the world, and his work is declaring positive news.
From the persecution of Christians in Nigeria and Pakistan to the systematic repression of Uyghur Muslims in China, the silencing of Baha’i in Iran and the marginalisation of atheists and humanists across the globe, the landscape of belief is under threat. Where religious freedom is suppressed, other human rights quickly follow. That is why the United Kingdom must embed FORB as a guiding thread through its diplomatic and development work, not just in words but in practice.
Through our embassies, aid and global partnerships, we have taken meaningful steps in the right direction. The establishment of the role of special envoy for freedom of religion or belief was a crucial milestone, and the special envoy is doing a tremendous job. I know that there is more to come. In 2022, the International Ministerial Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief in London gathered leaders from all around the world to reaffirm their commitment to protecting this freedom.
As new threats emerge, either through authoritarian surveillance, digital repression or the misuse of anti-conversion laws, our response must be firm, proactive and principled. We must ensure that FORB is not siloed as a niche concern, but integrated across every foreign policy conversation, from trade negotiations to peace- building, education and humanitarian relief. The Bible reminds us in Zechariah 7:9-10:
“This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’”
Every one of us in this place could learn a lot from that verse. That includes me, by the way; I am not excluding myself from that. All of us, including me, should consider that verse integral as we move forward. It calls us to protect freedom of religion and belief by standing up for the vulnerable and ensuring that justice and mercy guide our actions as a nation.
Let us speak boldly for those whose voices are silent. Let us be that voice for the voiceless. Let us partner with Governments, taking real steps to protect the right to choose our own beliefs and challenge those Governments that oppose that. I believe we need to understand that freedom of religion or belief is not optional; it is a crucial part of building lasting peace. It should inform our relationship with those nations in terms of reputation and trade deals.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I recently led a delegation as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq. We visited the Catholic archbishop of Erbil, Bashar Matti Warda, who told us about the safe haven that that region within Iraq offers for Christians and other religious communities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UK Government must do all that they can to strengthen places like that in difficult regions of the world as they try to foster freedom of religious belief and expression?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief we had an opportunity to be in Iraq when Daesh was active. We were in Erbil and worshipped in the Roman Catholic Church at that time, because we felt it was important to stand alongside our brothers and sisters wherever they may be in the world. It is good to know that things have now progressed in a positive way and that Daesh is out. We hope to go back to Iraq sometime in the near future. Whenever things settle down in the middle east might be a better time to do that.
I conclude with these comments for those with Christian faith, those with other faiths and those with no faith. In defending FORB we do not favour one faith over another. We defend the dignity of every individual—Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, atheist or otherwise —to believe, to change belief or to have no belief at all. Our foreign policy must not merely protect our interests, but must reflect our identity. That identity is rooted in liberty, justice and the unshakeable conviction that every person is created equal and worthy of respect. Let us stand firm in that conviction for the sake of those who suffer, and for the sake of the world we seek to build.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this debate. I was with him the day that his appointment was announced. It was after many weeks of us all wondering whether Downing Street would appoint an envoy. He kept it quiet until it was announced, but I was so pleased that it was my friend who was given that responsibility, because I cannot think of anybody better to take on that role.
I thank everyone who has spoken today. Every speech has moved me in some way. It is a testament to the way that freedom of religion or belief goes to the heart of our British values that we sit in cross-party consensus on this. And it is a testament to our nation that we can have this level of civility in our debate. I can look across to Opposition Members and see people I hold in high regard, notwithstanding our different views on various aspects of policy.
I join the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) in his tribute to Fiona Bruce in the role that she played. I had the privilege of working with Fiona when she organised the FORB ministerial conference in 2022. The fact that I was a Labour candidate at the time and she a Conservative MP never came into it, because we were both absolutely unified in a sense of purpose.
I had the blessing of being able to work briefly for about a year and a half on freedom of religion or belief. My background is in conflict prevention and human rights. Despite a decade in that space, when a friend asked me whether I would be willing to come and support Government relations around FORB, I thought I was being asked to work for a US business magazine because I had not actually heard that phrase before, which shows that we have some work to do. But I soon came to grips with the brief and came to develop a deep appreciation of the importance of freedom of religion or belief within human rights work and the work that we do around the world to prevent identity-based violence.
As I entered this new world, however, I did so with a critical eye. I will just mention a few things that I have noted as a call to all of us who care about FORB. One is that we need to look outwards and not inwards. We need to avoid a competition over which group is the most persecuted, and instead recognise that establishing the universal principles of FORB is the best way to secure freedoms and rights for everybody. Secondly, FORB does not give a right to impose one’s religion or beliefs on others. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) spoke so well about the importance of combating anti-blasphemy laws and the crucial right to be able to not believe in a deity.
Thirdly, those of us who do come from a background of faith need also to recognise that the price of the freedom to practise our religion is to do no harm and to take responsibility. I think we need to do more sometimes to reach out to the LGBT community and others who have been historically marginalised and excluded, and that includes internationally. In Uganda, near where I used to work, a community is suffering intense persecution. It is in the name, sadly, of the God I worship that that persecution is being meted out. People from Afghanistan regularly reach out to me and tell me that they are living in a state of hiding akin to Anne Frank and her family, for fear of being exposed.
We need to emphasise the belief aspect of freedom of religion or belief, which includes humanism—the right not to believe. The right to share one’s faith must also entail the right to criticise that faith. I am a Latter-day Saint. I see that “The Book of Mormon” musical is on in the west end all the time. I am comfortable with that. I absolutely defend the right for people to criticise me or my faith, but there is a difference between criticising theological beliefs and stereotyping, or ascribing negative traits without evidence to the holders of those beliefs. Likewise, there is a difference between mocking a religion in its abstract or organised form and discriminating against an individual who identifies with it.
I want to speak to the strategy for a moment. This is a small point, but I think it is a really consequential one. We tend to think about our commitment to freedom of religion or belief in terms of negative rights—of protecting people against interference and infringements of their freedoms of conscience, speech or assembly—but I would suggest that for the UK truly to lead the world with our values, we need to assume our positive duty to enable those who are marginalised and persecuted to live in accordance with their faith and belief. We recognise that in our humanitarian response to war and disaster. We recognise the need for food, water, medicine and shelter, but could we also recognise the need for dignity, and the emotional and psychological need to live one’s faith? Could we not only allow people to live their religions, but actively assist them to do so?
I have seen great examples of that around the world, from the Muslim and Christian youth in the Central African Republic who work together to rebuild each other’s mosques and churches, to the AMAR Foundation in Iraq helping Yazidi refugees, particularly women and girls, find healing and empowerment through traditional religious clothing that they had to leave behind in their flight from ISIS.
Sam Rushworth
Apologies—I have almost finished. Members of my own church, the Latter-day Saints here in London, give out copies of the Quran to refugees. As we do this, let Britain continue to be a beacon for religious freedom around the world in an active sense.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this important debate on the role of freedom of religion or belief in UK foreign policy, and for his work as special envoy.
The ability to express one’s political and religious affiliations freely is a fundamental human right that must be preserved. That principle is enshrined in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, and must remain central to UK foreign policy. The Liberal Democrats have long believed that human rights, democracy and the rule of law are not just aspirational values, but the foundation of a just and peaceful world. I am proud of our long-standing commitment to defending freedom of religion or belief, and I am deeply concerned by the growing threat to those rights internationally.
Religious minorities across the globe continue to face harassment, discrimination and persecution. In 2021, the Pew Research Centre found that Christians faced Government or societal harassment in 160 countries, with Muslims facing it in 141 and Jews in 91. We should reflect on what those numbers mean: in those countries, people live in fear, and face violence or even imprisonment simply for their beliefs. Unfortunately, the situation is either deteriorating or stagnating in many such countries.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Earlier this week, I spoke to Aid to the Church in Need, particularly about the situation for Christians in Syria. Hon. Members are obviously well aware of the recent suicide bombing of the St Elias Orthodox church in Damascus, and Christian communities are still facing persecution, including with destructive fires. Does the hon. Member agree that the situation is grave in many parts of the world, including Syria?
Martin Wrigley
Absolutely. The situation is very grave in many parts of the world. In fact, it is more than grave—it is intolerable. In our foreign policy, the UK must proactively seek to champion freedom of belief and religion. The hon. Member for North Northumberland, the special envoy, has identified 10 priority countries where freedom of religion or belief is under particular strain; I am concerned that diplomatic pressure in those countries remains inconsistent and at times ineffective.
Where religious legislation remains stagnant or regressive, I see little evidence that UK engagement has shifted the dial. I urge the Government to take a far more active and co-ordinated approach, not just to maintain relationships but to use them to drive real progress on rights and freedoms. It is not enough to make declarations; the Government must match words with action. That means ensuring that the special envoy for freedom of religion or belief—I understand why he uses the acronym FORB; it is much easier to say—is properly resourced, has a clear mandate and is empowered to influence policy across the FCDO. I also urge the Government to appoint an ambassador-level champion for freedom of religion or belief, with cross-departmental reach and the responsibility to ensure that religious freedom is not an afterthought in UK foreign policy, but a guiding principle.
The UK’s approach must also recognise the intersections between religious persecution and other forms of oppression. Minority faith women and girls face heightened risks, including forced marriage, exclusion from education, and sexual violence. Their gender adds a further layer of marginalisation, and it is essential that UK policy reflects that reality.
We must also be alive to the modern tools of repression. In China, surveillance technology and biometric data are being used to monitor and intimidate religious groups. Technological repression is becoming increasingly sophisticated and the UK must be ready to challenge those abuses at the international level. To have the biggest impact, the UK must work through international bodies, including the United Nations and the Commonwealth, to press for reform, support democratic movements and uphold the right of all people to live with or without faith.
Persecution based on religion or belief should have no place in today’s world. It is a bellwether for broader freedoms: where it is restricted, restrictions on other rights soon follow. We will continue to push for a foreign policy that defends the rights of all people, everywhere, to live without fear and in accordance with their consciences. The UK must not be a bystander. We must lead with conviction, courage, and a clear commitment to human rights at the heart of our foreign policy. I ask the Minister what concrete steps the Government will take this year to challenge countries where religious repression is entrenched, and to ensure that our foreign policy truly upholds the values we claim to defend.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, not least as you have another role as trade envoy to New Zealand. I was very pleased to visit Christchurch, New Zealand, some years ago to see its magnificent cathedral. I then went again a few years later and saw that it had been destroyed. I pay tribute to our New Zealander friends because theirs is a Christian country, they uphold Christian values and they are part of our Commonwealth family.
Many New Zealand MP friends of mine would be fascinated by, and very supportive of, this wonderful and important debate. I commend the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing it and, more importantly, for continuing the work of our friend and former colleague Fiona Bruce, who was Member of Parliament for Congleton until last year. We can all agree that the hon. Gentleman is doing a splendid job as the special envoy on freedom of religion or belief, upholding the values shared by Members on both sides of the House. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for paying tribute to Fiona; she is a lovely person and we miss her. But we are delighted that the work she started is being continued by the hon. Member for North Northumberland.
The British nation has always stood resolutely for liberty, not just here at home but around the world. We are one of the few nations that have appointed a special envoy of this nature, and that is no small thing. But with that leadership comes immense responsibility. When millions across the globe face violence, imprisonment and discrimination simply because of what they believe, we cannot look the other way or pass by on the other side. We have a moral obligation to defend the fundamental freedoms that have shaped our history in these islands and defined our values. We must never retreat from upholding what is right. Indeed, it is precisely because we always stand firm in defence of such principles that the United Kingdom commands such deep respect around the world. Liberty generally, and freedom of religion or belief more broadly, must be at the heart of our foreign policy.
I commend all Members who spoke in this debate. I pay particular reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for highlighting the issue of what is happening in Taybeh, and how horrific the actions taken there are. It is very upsetting to hear, and I hope that our friends in Israel will be listening to this debate. As someone who is, and has always been, pro-Israel, I am very upset to hear what is going on. My heart goes out to the members of St George’s church, the Christian community and all those being persecuted or losing their lives in that dreadful conflict.
At the start of his speech, the hon. Member for North Northumberland spoke about visiting the Soviet Union and seeing the persecution there. I remember that during my days in the Young Conservatives we supported freedom of religion in the Soviet Union; Bibles were being smuggled over there—a lot of work was going on in those days. Earlier this year, I visited Shkodër, in the north of Albania. I visited a prison where the most appalling torture had taken place under the vile Albanian communist regime. We all agree that the world must move on from those atrocities and not go back. Sadly, there are parts of the world where these things continue. We must stand together, unified against such things.
I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury for making a clear statement: he said that we should be bold and courageous in proclaiming our Christian faith. And so we should. The entirety of the foundations, traditions, customs and heritage of our country are based on the Christian faith. The cross is on the top of the crown—when the King wears the crown, there is a cross on the top. That means that all religions and denominations are equal, but there has to be an understanding that there is a Christian foundation to our society.
I say to the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) that I was honoured to travel to Iceland a few years ago with Lord Campbell-Savours, the hon. Member’s father. We had many discussions about all kinds of things. The hon. Member has a wonderful father, who serves in the other place, and I am delighted to see that he is continuing his father’s work and talking about Iceland, a country with which we have a huge amount in common. There are many dear friends in that country. I also thank the hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for speaking in this significant debate.
We learned last week, and this has been articulated this afternoon, that the FCDO has now announced a five-point strategy on freedom of religion or belief. That is a welcome step, but as ever it is not about the plan—it is about delivery. What matters now is whether this Government are matching the words with actions.
The first point that has been articulated is that of upholding international standards. The UK has long had influence in international forums, as a member of the UN Security Council and given that our capital, London, is home to the Commonwealth Secretariat, but are we really using that influence to lead the charge on religious freedom to the full? Are we naming those who trample on religious rights? Are we truly standing up to regimes that ignore international law and persecute people of faith? Or are we hesitating when that might come at a diplomatic cost? Maybe the Minister can answer those questions later.
Secondly, on bilateral engagement, Ministers regularly tell us that they raise these issues behind closed doors. When will we see the results? What outcomes have been achieved from our talks with long-standing members of the Commonwealth, such as, for instance, Pakistan, where blasphemy laws continue to be abused with devastating effect; or Nigeria, where only last year, 218 Christians were slaughtered by Islamic fundamentalists in the middle belt? Have we made clear to those Governments that this simply cannot go on and that there will be consequences if it does?
And what about China? The persecution of Uyghur Muslims, Christians and Falun Gong practitioners has long been systematic, brutal and well-documented. Governments, past and present, talk of engagement, but what does that mean in practice? Given that His Majesty’s Government have gone back on their promise of a fully published China audit, will the Minister assure us all today that freedom of religion and belief will be front and centre in any negotiations with the Chinese Communist party? Or are we still willing to trade human rights for economic deals and the allure of a super-embassy on prime real estate in London? Is that really something we should be supporting?
The third strand of the FCDO’s policy strategy is building coalitions. In principle, of course I support that, but coalitions must be seen to be achieving things. Who are our partners? What practical steps have we taken with allies to defend freedom of religion and belief in the toughest regions, such as the Sahel, the middle east or central America? Have we formed joint initiatives or are we merely issuing polite statements?
John Slinger
A constituent of mine, Nicola, has raised concerns highlighted by the Open Doors charity about the case of Mehran Shamloui. He is a Christian who fled Iran to avoid being imprisoned for his faith and has apparently been detained after being deported back to Iran, and charged with propaganda against Islamic law and membership of groups opposing the state. He now faces an uncertain future. Does the hon. Member agree with me that cases relating to that particular country and regime must be a focus of our Government?
Andrew Rosindell
Of course; I could not possibly disagree. Now that point is on the record, I am sure the Minister will take note and take that case forward.
The fourth strand is about maintaining FORB across the FCDO. If done properly, that could be transformative. But, again, where is the detail? Are our ambassadors trained on FORB? Are they expected to report on it? Is religious freedom considered when we decide where aid goes or when arms are sold? Is FORB integrated in our dealings with Commonwealth partners, many of whom face significant challenges on these issues? Or is it still viewed as a specialist interest and a box simply to be ticked?
The final point is civil society. Those brave individuals on the ground are often the first line of defence for religious freedom. They speak out when Governments will not. They face threats, harassment and even death. How are we supporting them? Are we funding grassroots organisations? Are we giving them access to our embassies and high commissions, our diplomats and our protection, or are they being left to fend for themselves?
At the recent FCDO briefing on this subject, cases were presented regarding countries such as Nicaragua, Eritrea, Yemen and Afghanistan. The picture was bleak, with repressive laws, targeted killings and the crushing of dissent. This is seemingly part of a wider pattern. In Nicaragua, the Ortega regime is targeting the Catholic Church in a campaign of repression. In Eritrea, Christians are languishing in prison.
In Yemen, religious minorities are caught between war and persecution. In Syria and Iraq, ancient communities have been decimated. What exactly is the UK doing in each of those places? Where are the consequences for those who commit these crimes?
The Government recently announced the suspension of sanctions on the new Syrian Government. However, as recently as this week, we have witnessed the eruption of violence between the Druze minority and Islamists, with the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reporting dozens of deaths. In the light of those developments, was the suspension of sanctions on Syria premature? I think it was. If FORB is central to our foreign policy, was the suspension of sanctions on Syria an indication that religious freedom has been restored in Syria? Are we monitoring the dangers faced by religious and ethnic minorities such as the Druze, who have long sought to remain neutral in Syria’s civil conflict?
The sad truth is that freedom of religion and belief is deteriorating and violations are increasing. Perpetrators are becoming more brazen and the people who are suffering, be they Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Yazidis, Jewish people, Baha’is or others, too often have nowhere to turn. If the Government are prepared to back fine words with firm action, let us see it now. Will they publish regular updates on how the five-point strategy is being delivered? Will they bring transparent, accountable and measurable goals into the work published?
I believe that Britain has always stood for freedom. Let us not falter now. We have a voice through the previous Government’s creation of the special envoy position. We have the tools now; what we need is the resolve to use them. I urge the Minister to ensure that all our talk of freedom of religion and belief is not merely honeyed words, but a real statement of intent from His Majesty’s Government that we take this seriously and that those who violate the sacrosanct principles of religious freedom will suffer the consequences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this debate and for his dedicated work, both before he entered this place and now as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. The strong views shared across the House today show just how important this issue is to so many of us. I welcome the chance to respond to the points raised and to restate the Government’s commitment to defending freedom of religion or belief.
That commitment was reinforced just last week with the launch of the UK’s approach to FORB, which puts this work at the very heart of our foreign policy. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we are taking a more targeted approach under the FORB strategy, focusing on 10 countries, but not to the exclusion of engagement on FORB issues across the world; we will remain responsive to other situations. As today’s debate demonstrates, this is truly a global challenge.
Human rights, including the right to freedom of religion or belief, the rule of law and good governance, are the foundations of this Government’s mission. This is about not only doing what is right, but our national interest. We know that countries that uphold rights and the rule of law are more stable, prosperous and resilient. We also know that when freedom of religion or belief is under threat, the other rights are often at risk. That was poignantly demonstrated in the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (John Slinger) and for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who talked about the LGBTQ community, which is sometimes oppressed by religious communities, and Yazidi refugees in connection with the element of respect and dignity in the strategy.
I take on board the challenge around training—perhaps not for our staff, but for Members and Ministers. I often find that it is the Ministers who get trained by the officials, but I will make sure that there is training on both sides. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland will look at training needs across the network, in case there is anything we have missed.
From the Uyghurs in China, who were mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), and Ukrainians under Russian occupation to recent attacks on worshippers in Syria and the daily persecution of minority communities in Bangladesh, these are not isolated incidents. They are a call to action, and this Government will respond.
That is why Lord Collins, the Minister for human rights, recently wrote to all heads of mission underlining the importance of embedding our human rights priorities, including freedom of religion or belief, across the network. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, the strategy demands that we draw on the strength of our diplomatic network, so that freedom of religion or belief is genuinely embedded in the conversations that we are having anyway, working with human rights champions and grassroots networks, speaking up on the international stage, and of course landing our messages clearly in our bilateral engagements. In our bilateral work, often we speak out publicly, and more often we speak privately, and we will continue to do both.
We do not shy away from challenging countries that fall short of their obligations, but we also know that real progress comes through partnership, finding common ground and working together to deliver change. To take a few examples, freedom of religion or belief is a central part of our work in Pakistan. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), discussed this topic with Government Ministers and religious leaders during his visit in November.
In Nigeria, the drivers of intercommunal violence are complex, but I was relieved to hear of the release of Mubarak Bala, whose case my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) raised. That was the result of a long-running campaign by Humanity International and the all-party parliamentary humanist group, which the Government were pleased to get behind. These campaigns are often so much more powerful when they do not come from Governments, but when Governments get behind them.
In October, I personally pressed the Vietnamese Government to respect people’s rights to speak freely, to meet in groups and to practise their religion, just as they agreed to in their most recent United Nations human rights review. I followed up with Vice Foreign Minister Hang on 17 March, and I will keep working with the Vietnamese Government to make sure that these rights are protected. We are also in constant dialogue with the interim Government in Bangladesh, stressing the importance of upholding freedom of religion or belief and protecting all communities, even when they make up less than 5% of the population.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) spoke about Syria. We are deeply concerned about the recent violence in the south and welcome the announcement yesterday of a ceasefire. Perhaps the picture is changing. We have made it clear that the Government must ensure the protection of all civilians, including Druze, hold to account those responsible for violence and make progress towards an inclusive political transition. The Foreign Secretary visited earlier this month and underlined those priorities.
Meanwhile, we continue to stand firm on human rights in China, raising our concerns at the highest level and as part of the audit the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned. I was able to meet with groups, including Rahima Mahmut from the Xinjiang group, as part of the audit, so the words of people in the Xinjiang region who have personally suffered bled into the China audit.
The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) mentioned the awful situation in Taybeh in the west bank. His words echo those of the Bishop of Southwark, who has condemned the situation in Taybeh and the pure impunity following the attacks in the occupied Palestinian territories. We have also seen the Holy Family church in Gaza being struck. Earlier this week, our consul general visited Taybeh with church leaders and international partners to express solidarity with the local community following those awful attacks, which were so eloquently described by the Father of the House. We also reiterate our calls for the status quo arrangement at Jerusalem’s holy sites to be upheld, to ensure the safety and the security of Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount and all who worship there.
At the multilateral level, we believe that real progress comes from working together. That is why we are using our international role alongside a wide range of countries to promote tolerance and respect. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland joined the UK-led Human Rights Council side event on Tibetan Buddhism, leading the international community on this important question in Geneva. We need to listen to the testimonies of the Tibetan Buddhist community, so that our Government can show that we believe that choosing the Dalai Lama’s successor is a decision for Tibetan Buddhists alone.
We regularly take part in interactive dialogues with the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and other mandate holders. In June, we used the platform to call on the Taliban to reverse their inhumane restrictions on minorities, including the Hazara community, which of course particularly affect Hazara women. We also urged Eritrea to release people detained for political reasons or for their religion or belief. We often raise freedom of religion or belief concerns during the UN’s universal periodic review. In particular, we pressed the Iraqi Government—the hon. Members for Rugby and for Strangford spoke about—regarding the Kurdish and Christian communities, who are both under severe pressure in that part of the world.
John Slinger
I had the great privilege of visiting the holiest temple of the Yazidi people, Lalish, and was warmly welcomed by them. They have endured horrific atrocities at the hands of ISIS Daesh, including genocide and mass displacement. Does my hon. Friend agree that the work of the Kurdistan Regional Government and President Nechirvan Barzani—particularly through initiatives such as the office for rescuing the abducted, which has so far rescued 3,500 individuals—is to be commended? Can she see whether the Government can help in that endeavour?
Catherine West
I certainly will. My hon. Friend has now put that on record, so I am pleased that he was able to get that into this important debate. I am also pleased that we were able to lobby the Government of Laos to guarantee that everyone, including minorities, can exercise their rights without facing reprisals. We also work closely with the OSCE, which gives us a valuable platform to discuss freedom of religion or belief and related issues.
We are an active member of the Article 18 Alliance, on which my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland went into in much detail. Over the past year, the UK has proudly held the presidency of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and we led international efforts to promote Holocaust remembrance, tackle distortion, fight antisemitism, and ensure that future generations learn the lessons of the past.
I can announce today that the programme funding is safe—the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), asked about that. The John Bunyan fund, which targets funding through our posts, is safe from any reductions. I am excited to see how that will be spent, in consultation with the envoy for freedom of religion or belief. On the question of the important case in Iran raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, I am sure that the Minister, Lord Collins, will respond to him in detail.
I recognise the strength of feeling in this debate. It is a reminder of how deeply people care about the right to believe or not believe freely. That is why we are committed to working with others, and we will use every opportunity to stand up for freedom of religion or belief. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland will get me into big trouble if I do not.
David Smith
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.
RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of the RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit during the Second World War.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I begin by placing on record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this debate, and for its flexibility in allowing me to move the debate from the previous date to accommodate my recent compassionate leave.
I am especially proud, as the daughter of a second world war veteran, to open this debate, and I am honoured to do so on the 80th anniversary of the end of that global conflict. As this is the second debate on the national monument for individuals who served in the RAF reconnaissance units during the second world war, I wish to use this opportunity to update the record on the progress that has been made on this campaign, and to highlight how the Minister might help to further bolster its incredible ambition.
Since 2019, the Spitfire AA810 project has sought to achieve recognition of the work carried out by members of the Royal Air Force more than 80 years ago. Indeed, it has taken the project more than six years to locate and access, where available, the official records to build a measured picture of exactly how important their work was. The unarmed reconnaissance units and squadrons were formed in 1939, and their work would play a vital part in every single theatre of allied operations in the second world war. Every invasion, every operation and every tactical decision taken by the allied supreme command substantially used the intelligence brought back by these young airmen, the fewest of Churchill’s few. The secret war—a spies in the skies war—was carried out from just a handful of bases, their work largely unspoken. The photographic intelligence team supporting them—men and women from a variety of backgrounds—worked hidden away in requisitioned homes. Their work, too, is set to be recognised for the first time, and I shall cover that later in this speech.
By the end of the war, those young airmen had delivered some 26 million photographs—all compiled, categorised, analysed and reported on within 24 hours of the aircraft returning to the UK—intelligence from which would arrive not far from this place in the then Cabinet war rooms below the Treasury. With decades of hindsight, experts now recognise that aerial photography produced some 80% of the intelligence used for the strategic planning of the allied tactical campaign. Supported by Enigma decoding and the work of the Special Operations Executive in occupied enemy territory, the efforts of these men and women considerably shortened the war, saving hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of lives. Therefore, those of us who, like me, are direct descendants of second world war veterans owe a particular debt of thanks to the airmen of the photographic reconnaissance unit, because without their work, our fathers and grandfathers would literally have been advancing into the unknown.
With the war over, a new cold war era was coming. Intelligence developments would remain secret, the work pioneered by these individuals hushed up in a wider world of uncertainty. But who were these people and how do we recognise them, for there were not many?
In the early days of the campaign, it was found that the records of those who served had never been collated. By searching the orders of battle to identify the units tasked with that vital work, it was possible to access those individuals’ public operations record books and begin the painstaking work of piecing together and cross-referencing the names of all who had served. From those pages grew a list of names, but they were names without a story. It has been a mammoth effort for nearly six years for the team to find out who those people were, where they had come from, and importantly, what happened to them. To date, 1,747 names have been identified as eligible for inclusion on the monument, but publicly accessible records have enabled the fate of only 1,408 of them to be confirmed. It is also worth noting that as research has continued over the years, the death rate percentage has fluctuated as more information has become available. Nonetheless, it has remained stubbornly in the mid-40% range for some time now.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, at which many of us are here to support her. Two of the names on that list of 1,747 people are from my constituency of Ealing Southall, including Warrant Officer Mervyn Harris, who was reported missing in action in June 1945, just before the end of the war. His body was never found. Sergeant Frank Bastard, from Chandos Avenue in Northfields, survived the war and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Medal for flying after a pilot was injured. Warrant Officer Harris has a local memorial at the NatWest bank in Southhall, where he used to work. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although local monuments are a great thing, we need a national monument to properly recognise those people’s sacrifice?
Ms Minns
I completely concur, and I am delighted that we are here today talking about just such a national monument.
Tragically, the project has been able to confirm that 629 of those men— representing 45% of those who could be found—were casualties. Of those who were killed, a third are still missing in action to this day. As they flew solo over great distances, with instruments such as radios having been removed to improve the aircraft’s range, we simply do not know where they went down.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. She has said that approximately one in two of those in the reconnaissance unit lost their lives. Of the two from the Bishop Auckland constituency, one did not survive: 20-year-old Flight Sergeant Peter Charles Wells from Whorlton village. He was shot down over Malta just two days before Christmas in 1941. His grave is inscribed with psalm 139:9:
“If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall thy hand lead me”.
My hon. Friend emphasises the loss that we have experienced, and the absolute need to honour those people. I hope that Peter Wells’s family will have more than just a grave in Malta.
Ms Minns
I thank my hon. Friend for putting on record that touching and beautiful tribute to the servicemen from his constituency.
One of those who never came home was Flight Sergeant Charles Ross from my own Carlisle constituency. His records show him as serving in the far east, but we do not know whether he lived beyond VJ Day to make it home to his family. Another airman from the Carlisle area, Flight Lieutenant Rae Armstrong, survived and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his work. However, two other local men did not return. Flying Officer Ivan Cooke would be killed aged 34 in operations from Malta, and Flying Officer William Johnston was killed returning from a reconnaissance operation in his Spitfire in December 1944. He was just 22 years old.
I know that many hon. Members here today, and those who are unable to join us, wish to pay tribute to the men who came from their constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) has asked that heroes such as Denis Herbert Vincent Smith, who remains missing after being shot down in 1942; Norman Stuart Cooper, who was killed in action in 1944; and Norman Charles Shirley, who was awarded the Distinguished Flying Medal for his wartime service, all of whom have a connection with Oxford East, be remembered too.
I also wish to recognise the work of the photographic intelligence teams who supported the aircrews, whose names will also be included on the memorial. These men and women were crucial to the entire process. Without them, we would have had the 26 million photographs, but we would not have gleaned the intelligence that we did from them. Those men and women used a little-known branch of science called stereoscopy to turn the photographs into 3D images, from which they could decipher and interpret the intelligence contained within, giving the allies a crucial intelligence advantage over the Nazis.
Among those who did that critical work were the legendary Constance Babington Smith, the actor Dirk Bogarde, and Sarah Churchill, the daughter of the then Prime Minister. Indeed, of the 630 photographic interpreters who will be included on the memorial, almost a third were women. That only serves to highlight how crucial the work of women was to the success of the entire operation.
The work of the photographic reconnaissance unit was truly international, and the campaign team have worked hard to identify nationals from across the world—from Argentina to Trinidad, from Malawi to Ukraine, and from many more countries—who answered the call of the common cause against tyranny, and who bravely came forward to serve, flying unarmed operations and helping to shorten the war.
How do we now look to recognise these efforts and sacrifices? Since the last Westminster Hall debate was held on this topic in 2021, the project has met and gained the formal support of former and current veterans Ministers, including my hon. Friend the Minister, who has engaged positively and wholeheartedly with this project and its supporters across Westminster. Across Parliament, the campaign has secured the support of more than 200 MPs from all parties, as well as 16 foreign embassies and high commissions. Formal Ministry of Defence support for the monument proposal was given by the then Defence Minister Baroness Goldie, and reaffirmed recently by Lord Coaker.
Earlier this year, with ministerial support from within the Cabinet Office, a successful meeting was held with the Royal Parks authority and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, during which verbal confirmation of support for the monument and its location was given. Because the intelligence gained from these operations was used by the war Cabinet to such great effect, there seemed no more suitable a location to honour this work than just yards from the wartime underground Cabinet war rooms, where that intelligence was originally received.
Following formal written support by the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Office, along with confirmations of no objections received from the Treasury and the Government Property Agency, I am delighted to share that the project has now begun the formal planning stage. The monument is to be located in the grassed area outside the Treasury building, alongside the exit from the Cabinet war rooms. And what a monument it will be: traditional in appearance, yet utilising modern AI technology to bring to life the extensive resources collected by the project, this monument will engage visitors in a multi-language format to ensure that the individuals recognised are more than just a name on a wall—that their extreme sacrifice is known and that their work is never forgotten.
What started as the recovery of a reconnaissance Spitfire from a Norwegian mountain in 2018 has grown into a truly global project of recognition. Among veterans, too, it has been warmly welcomed, although sadly their numbers have dwindled over the years. While some five survivors were known at the start of the campaign, it is sad to put on the record the passing of the last known RAF reconnaissance airman, Warrant Officer William Williams, of 681 and 684 photographic reconnaissance squadrons, who died in April this year, just a few weeks short of his 104th birthday. Today, there remains just one photographic interpreter, identified only recently, with whom the project will shortly meet.
Because accuracy is key, the Spitfire AA810 project has gone to huge lengths to check and independently verify the identities of those who served. It is vital to the commemorative and educational aims of this campaign that all who served are recognised and nobody is left behind. Research into the service of the 635 photographic interpreters is ongoing. However, for the 399 mystery names from mostly lower ranks, publicly accessible records have been exhausted.
I therefore come to my ask of the Minister, and I am sure he will be relieved to know that it is not a financial one. The project team is reaching the end of what it can do with publicly available resources. To confirm the details of the servicemen and women who were involved, the project requests an opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss a working arrangement with civil servants and military personnel. The team are fully aware of the need to protect personal data, but they would like to access limited information in order to confirm the identities of those who are eligible for inclusion on the memorial and, more importantly, to identify the partial names that have been collated. The answers lie only within the records of the Ministry of Defence, and the project hopes to propose a simple working solution that enables it expediently to complete this important task with minimal impact on Government resources. I would be incredibly grateful for the Minister’s consideration of that request.
Finally, I commend the work of everyone in the campaign for bringing these stories to light and, most of all, of the brave individuals who served in the RAF unarmed reconnaissance units with such distinction. With this monument, I hope that their service and sacrifice will always be remembered.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) on securing this debate and on the way she recounted such moving and powerful stories. Each story is unique, but they are all united by themes of selflessness, quiet heroism and unwavering commitment to our country.
I will pay particular attention to Tatton’s own local photographic reconnaissance unit hero, Flight Sergeant William Douglas Stepford. William was born in Handforth, married his sweetheart Bessie, and joined the RAF Volunteer Reserve. He trained as a navigator and was posted to 540 Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron. Sadly, in August 1944, while flying a reconnaissance mission over Munich, William’s aircraft was shot down over Hallstatt. He was just 24 years old. That was alongside his pilot, Flight Lieutenant Desmond Laurence Matthewman, DFC.
For so many reconnaissance flights, the missions were carried out in exceptionally difficult circumstances—clandestine, unarmed and often solo flights over enemy territory, which put the individuals in unique danger. The death rate was nearly 50%, with one of the lowest survival rates in the war, but the unit captured 26 million photographs over the course of the war, taken by 1,746 reconnaissance pilots and navigators.
The efforts of the unit were essential, and nowhere more so than in the planning of D-day, also known as Operation Overlord, the most significant victory of the allies. That was the most comprehensive reconnaissance operation of the war. In the months before the invasion, low-level reconnaissance flights over Normandy provided critical intelligence about German beach defences and key infrastructure. Without that information, the comprehensive plans for Operation Overlord, and its ultimate success, would not have been possible.
Tatton played a unique role in the preparations. The quiet village of Lower Peover played host to many of the great Americans of history, from General George Patton to General Eisenhower—later President Eisenhower, of course. Peover Hall became the headquarters of the vast US third army. In the local pub, the Bells of Peover, Patton and Eisenhower met to discuss plans for the invasion. Today, still, in that pub, in the upstairs dining room—now, aptly, named The Patton—can be found a small pocket diary on display. Spread across the pages for 5 and 6 June 1944, an unknown serviceman wrote in block capitals:
“D-day tomorrow. Everybody quite excited. We land at Arromanches, clear three villages of Bayeux.”
Last year, on the 80th anniversary of D-day, I was pleased to unveil a blue plaque to mark the pub’s place in history alongside the lord lieutenant of the county of Cheshire, Councillor Anthony Harrison, and the landlord of the pub, Phil Smith, and surrounded by the local community. The plaque serves as a reminder of the unique history of this beautiful village in Cheshire.
Surrounding villages also played their part. From the secret aviation fuel plant in Plumley to the home guard at Shakerley Wood and the parachute training school at Tatton Park, each village, each unit and every individual had a role. Without those such as William Stepford putting themselves in the line of danger, the admiralty would not have had the intelligence it needed for operations like D-day. Without them, history would have taken a different course.
Alongside Members here today from across the House, I welcome plans for this memorial. I am delighted that planning has already begun, but on this occasion, can I just ask the Minister to give us the full timeframe and completion date for this memorial? It is high time that their legacy is honoured by all of us and the entire country.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
If everyone sticks to the informal time limit of four minutes, we should get everyone in.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for securing this important debate. We are here today to honour the men and women of the RAF photographic reconnaissance unit, whose intelligence gathering and same-day reports influenced critical wartime decisions. It has been a privilege today to hear about some of these men and women, two of whom came from my own constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale.
Like so many, their heroism was consistent and anonymous. The covert nature of the operations meant that the pilots worked without most forms of protection, and operations were often flown solo in unarmoured and unarmed craft. Consequently, this unit faced some of the deadliest odds in the entire war. Almost half would not survive, and the average life expectancy was barely two years.
The result of these dangerous and often fatal missions were millions of photographs of important strategic targets, giving allies vital and accurate information that would prove instrumental in the planning of some of the most pivotal operations, from D-day to the Dambusters raid. The information was analysed by 635 photographic interpreters, who sifted through nearly 26 million images of enemy operations, providing up-to-date intelligence.
One third of these interpreters were women who worked tirelessly to protect a nation at a time when they were not even allowed to open their own bank accounts. The unit of pilots was made up of people from 22 nations working together to advance the war effort. World war two is considered to be the golden age of British spirit, but the truth is that our greatest achievements have always come from unity across different peoples and places.
As I said, two members of the unit came from my area. John Boys-Stones was born in 1919 in Morecombe, and he joined the RAF to train as a pilot, before he was posted to the photographic reconnaissance squadron based in Malta. On 7 March 1941, he was tasked to photograph the damage inflicted on an enemy shipping convoy that had been attacked earlier that day. On his approach to land, his aircraft was shot down by an enemy fighter. He was killed instantly, and he was only 22.
Another John—John Just—was born in 1916 in Lancaster, and lived in Carnforth. He was a qualified plumber, and after marrying Maybel Jean Brown in 1939, he left for RAF service to train as a navigator. Posted to the 140 photographic reconnaissance squadron, he survived a crash on take-off on Boxing day in 1944. John Just survived the war, and the couple eventually moved to Morecambe, and then to Essex, where they raised a family. They survived to 1994 and 2008 respectively, living long lives and able to enjoy the fruits of the peace they both worked towards.
I would hazard a guess that this is the first time that many of these names have been recognised officially. That is why this monument is so important, and I support the plans outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. It is a small step to recognise their immense sacrifice and the debt that we owe them. This debate shows us once again that, in a world which so often assumes the worst, real history shows us the opposite. Ordinary citizens again and again choose courage—we could not even list all the people who contributed within the time constraints of this debate.
It is a privilege, as one of the millions of beneficiaries of these heroes, to stand today in a robust parliamentary democracy and speak of their bravery. In remembering them, we remind ourselves of who we can be at our best, when we come together in service of something greater than ourselves.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz; I am really pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) on securing the debate and providing Members with the opportunity to recognise those from our constituencies. All of us in this Chamber and beyond recognise that the role of the RAF photographic reconnaissance unit, or the PRU, during world war two deserves far greater recognition. They were brave men and women who operated in the shadows, often alone, often unarmed and always under threat, to gather the vital intelligence that enabled our armed forces to plan and execute decisive decisions.
As we have heard, the reconnaissance unit played a critical role in some of the most famous and successful missions of the war, from the Dambusters raid to D-day and even the hunt for the Bismarck, but behind these national and international stories, there are people. There are people from communities such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills. One such individual was Flying Officer Eugene Cotton, a local hero from Rushall, who I am proud to speak about today. I can see you smiling, Ms Vaz, as my neighbouring MP from the borough of Walsall; I think it does reflect on the joint history of the Walsall borough.
Eugene was just 25 when he flew Mosquito aircraft on dangerous reconnaissance missions over Japanese-held territory in the far east, and in December 1943, he flew over Rangoon in a mission, but sadly he never returned. His story, though tragic, is also deeply inspiring. Eugene’s parents, Arthur and Ethel, were well known in the local community. His father served as an organist and choirmaster at St Michael and All Angels church in Pelsall, and his mother taught at Pelsall School. They were local people clearly grounded in service to their local community, and Eugene followed in their footsteps, offering the ultimate sacrifice for our country.
Eugene’s courage, and that of the more than 2,300 others who served in the unit, deserves to be recognised in our national story. That is why I am fully behind the campaign for a memorial. I welcome the Government’s recent support to move this project to the planning stage. I welcome the update we have received today, and I think it is incumbent on us all just to keep gently nudging the Minister—not that I believe he needs much nudging—to make sure it is delivered for our constituents and for our nation.
Let us remember that the PRU’s legacy was not just in the air; it extended to the photographic interpreters, many of whom were women, whose skill in analysing the 26 million images captured during the war was nothing short of remarkable. Their work saved lives, won battles and helped to bring an end to the war. Today, I add my voice in support of this memorial not just as a Member of Parliament, but as someone who knows just how much this means to our local communities and to our nation. If we are to honour the memories of heroes such as Eugene Cotton, we must ensure that their contributions, as well as the contributions of all who served in the RAF photographic reconnaissance unit, are fully recognised. The unit’s work was vital. It was often unseen, but it changed the course of history, and it is time we gave them the place that they deserve in our national story.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for securing this important debate.
Last November, I visited war memorials across the Cities of London and Westminster. From Paddington and Marylebone stations to St Paul’s cathedral, we honoured all those who fought and made such great sacrifices during both world wars. I am honoured to meet veterans regularly in my constituency and to talk with them about their service.
Now is a good time to reflect on the importance of memorials. I am a descendant of two second world war veterans. One of my grandfathers fought in the artillery in Burma and the other was part of the Italian army. They fought, made huge physical, mental and emotional sacrifices, and suffered for our freedom. This debate is an opportunity to think about those who put themselves in a different kind of danger—those in the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit. Others have spoken eloquently this afternoon about the huge risks that they took in their expeditions.
I want to pay particular tribute to Flight Officer James Downie, born on St George Street in Mayfair, who died on a mission to the Romagne region of France and is commemorated there with a memorial constructed by local residents; Sergeant James Jacobs, who was killed in a propeller accident at just 21 years old; Flight Lieutenant Basil Allen, from Hanover Square; Wing Commander Denis Bennett, born near Hanover Square; Flight Lieutenant Frederick Effort; Flight Officer Noel Henkel; Flight Lieutenant Anthony Oldworth; Squadron Leader John Saffery; Flight Lieutenant Denis Speares; Flight Lieutenant David Wycliffe; Sergeant Robin Vigiers; Flight Sergeant Malcolm Westcott; and Flight Lieutenant Ian Barraclough, all of whom served in the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit.
I am really proud to represent so many people who have such an important connection to the unit. I am proud to support the memorial by St James’s Park and I am grateful that it has the Government’s support.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for affording us all the opportunity to recognise a wonderful part of this nation’s history. It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He is held in high esteem by all hon. Members—not to put any pressure on the answers that he will give shortly. I say that in jest.
It is a great pleasure to speak about the extraordinary role of the RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit during the second world war—a unit whose daring missions and critical intelligence gathering were pivotal to the allied victory. The PRU’s pilots, who flew unarmed planes into enemy skies, showed a bravery that reminds us of the men of the merchant navy, who manned unarmed ships through dangerous waters.
In 1940, the RAF PRU rose from Sidney Cotton’s civilian Heston Flight, officially becoming the No. 1 Photographic Reconnaissance Unit in November 1940. It was tasked with capturing high-resolution aerial photos of enemy territory. We have to consider what that means—it means it operated with little or no protection. The PRU became our eyes in the sky.
The pilots would fly modified, unarmed aircraft, such as Spitfires and Mosquitoes, at incredible speeds and altitudes of 44,000 feet, evading enemy detection to gather intelligence. The images meticulously analysed by the RAF Medmenham’s allied central interpretation unit revealed German secrets from rocket programmes to fortified defences. In 1943, the PRU’s reconnaissance over Peenemünde revealed Germany’s V1 and V2 rocket development, prompting Operation Hydra, a bombing raid that delayed the use of those weapons by months, potentially saving countless lives.
For D-day in 1944, the PRU’s 85,000 daily images mapped the Atlantic wall, enabling precision planning for the Normandy invasion. It is impossible to overstate the courage demanded for these missions. Just like the merchant navy, whose crews worked mostly on unarmed ships, braving U-boat-infested waters to deliver vital supplies, the PRU pilots flew unarmed planes in skies heavy with Luftwaffe fighters.
Tragically, the PRU suffered the highest casualty rate of any RAF unit. Pilots such as Wing Commander Adrian Warburton, a daring pilot who on 11 November 1940 flew a recon mission over a huge flight of Italian battleships in Taranto harbour, not far from Malta—flying so low he could almost reach out and touch the vessels, and was very aware of their painted names. He was shot down in April 1944. His remains were not discovered until 2002 in a field in Bavaria, around 30 miles west of Munich, still strapped in his plane’s cockpit.
The PRU’s strength was supported by pilots and bases around the Commonwealth and beyond. I am very proud to say that Northern Ireland had a role to play in that, with a vital RAF hub supporting the PRU at airfields in Aldergrove and Limavady, which were key locations for Coastal Command operations until 1942.
The Commonwealth’s role in the PRU was significant thanks to the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand airmen, and of course the invaluable contributions of the Polish airmen whose feats are the stuff of legend. No. 318 Polish Fighter-Reconnaissance Squadron supported reconnaissance efforts as well, and their flights over Peenemünde were critical. Polish intelligence from the Home Army provided ground-level reports that complemented PRU imagery, especially after rocket testing shifted to Blizna in Poland.
The PRU’s innovations saw techniques such as “dicing”, where pilots skimmed treetops under fire—my goodness, that makes your head spin. Night photography using the Edgerton D-2 flash system and infrared film by 1945 enabled the PRU to break enemy camouflage in darkness. Who thinks all these up? I know I could not, but those people did. Those developments, teamed with cameras like the F24 and F52, delivered precise intelligence, paving the way for today’s modern reconnaissance. They set the examples for the rest of us.
The PRU’s legacy remains firm and indisputable in the National Collection of Aerial Photography, while those brave, precious lives lost are commemorated by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission with memorials around the UK, such as at Runnymede, and also in France, Malta, Sicily, Tunisia and Singapore. That demonstrates how far their reach extended.
In conclusion—I am conscious of your time limit, Ms Vaz, which is why I am speaking at 100 mph—to those brave pilots, our eyes in the sky, especially those who lost their lives flying high-risk spying missions to secure our liberation, we owe our profound, lasting admiration, respect and gratitude. Their legacy compels us to be the keepers and guardians of their history.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
As the hon. Members who have spoken so far have been so good with their time, other Members have a bit more time.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. It is also a privilege to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate, which I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for bringing forward. As another granddaughter of a world war two veteran, I am ashamed to say that before meeting David Robertson from the Spitfire project, I had not known about the bravery, skill and determination of those pilots and the contribution that they made. I did not know about the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit, and I am sure I am not alone.
After the war, the PRU’s stories were buried and long forgotten, as most reconnaissance units were, but it has a unique story. Flying in essentially a gutted plane with no more than a camera deep into enemy territory, unarmed and unprotected, pilots gathered vital intelligence to help the allies win the war. Those planes were literally designed to carry as much fuel as possible at the expense of protecting the pilots—such bravery; such a sacrifice.
I want to pay particular tribute to one of my own constituents, Coalville’s James Hares, who was among the brave few to serve in that extraordinary unit. Despite flying in a role that carried a death rate of one in two—one of the highest in the entire war—he survived the war but tragically passed away on the journey home having suffered a cardiac arrest after an allergic reaction. He was buried at sea off the coast of Sri Lanka, never making it home to his family.
This is the second time I have had the opportunity to share my constituent’s story. I will say his name and tell his story again as he deserves to be remembered. We have written to our local paper to find out more about James. Sadly, we have drawn a blank, so I call on the Minister, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, to do what he can to open up the data so we can find out more about those brave men and women.
I am pleased the Spitfire project has gained parliamentary support for a monument. I want to pay tribute to its hard work and the work that it has put into the campaign. Beyond the memorial, the Spitfire project is also looking to the future. Its science, technology, engineering and mathematics-focused education programme is inspiring a new generation and encouraging school-aged children to pursue careers in aerospace, aviation and motorsport. In that way the legacy of the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit is not just preserved, but made a living and dynamic memory continuing to serve the nation into a new century and inspiring a generation.
I am sure that the opportunity for the public to see a Spitfire as James would have piloted it will bring to everyone’s attention just how brave the pilots were. It is fantastic to see so many MPs today honouring their constituents. I look forward to working closely with the Spitfire project and I look forward to the monument. May we honour and remember the contribution that the people in the PRU made to our nation during world war two.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for securing this fantastic debate.
It is a great honour to rise to pay tribute to one of the most remarkable and least widely recognised units that contributed to the allied victory in the second world war: the RAF’s PRU. Formed on 24 September 1939, the PRU carried out some of the most daring and vital operations of the entire war. PRU airmen flew unarmed and unarmoured aircraft deep into enemy territory, often alone. Over the course of six years, the missions captured more than 26 million images that would shape allied strategy and save countless lives. Intelligence gathered by PRU flyers informed decisions in the Cabinet war rooms, supported the success of the Dambusters raid, and provided the data and insight needed for the D-day landings—enabling the precision planning that helped to turn the tide of the war in Europe.
We are used to hearing of daring feats by heroic fighter pilots and dogged bomber crews, but the PRU operated under uniquely harrowing conditions. Flying alone with no weapons to defend themselves and no escorts to offer assistance, their only defences were altitude, speed and luck. They took to the skies with nothing more than a camera and a sense of duty. Indeed, the death rate in the PRU was among the highest of any allied aerial unit: life expectancy was on average two and a half months, and more than 500 men died serving in the PRU.
That sacrifice was felt across the length and breadth of this country, including in my Reigate constituency. Among the many who served in the PRU was Flight Lieutenant Douglas Adcock, who lived in Redhill. Douglas joined the RAF alongside his older brother, Reginald, and quickly qualified to fly the legendary Mosquito aircraft—a plane almost tailor-made for the PRU’s daring missions. He flew out of RAF Benson with 544 Squadron, conducting dangerous reconnaissance operations in support of the allied advance into occupied Europe, including missions ahead of the D-day landings. On 11 August 1944, his Mosquito failed to return from one of those missions. Some days later, his body washed up on the shore in Belgium, where he is buried today.
For all the sacrifice of brave men like Douglas, there is no national memorial to the PRU—no permanent site to honour their legacy and acknowledge their vital contribution to our victory. I strongly support the excellent work of the Spitfire AA810 project, which has campaigned tirelessly to establish a fitting memorial to the PRU. The recent announcement from the Minister that we will be getting such a memorial is much welcomed.
The way that history is remembered is shaped in large part by choices made in rooms such as this Chamber. Who do we raise memorials to? What do we teach our children about the past? Which major historical events do we commemorate each year? Our answers to these questions give shape to our national history, and thus far the history that we have made has not done justice to the PRU. We rightly commemorate the fighter pilots, bomber crews, sailors, submariners and soldiers of the second world war. We remember codebreakers, spies, scientists and even politicians. It is entirely correct that we will now find a place, too, for the quiet heroism of the PRU: the men who flew alone, unarmed and without fanfare, to gather the intelligence that made victory possible.
I reiterate my thanks to the Spitfire AA810 project. I urge that we move as quickly as possible to complete the national memorial that these men deserve. We owe them our thanks, we owe them our remembrance and we owe them a place in our national story. Let us make sure they get it.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for securing the debate and highlighting the role of the RAF unarmed Photographic Reconnaissance Unit during the second world war. The unit made a contribution that deserves to be remembered. As mentioned, it captured more than 26 million images of enemy operations and installations during the war. Without that vital information, the success of operations and, ultimately, the outcome of the second world war could have been very different.
Beyond its strategic impact, the unit also deserves to be commemorated for the extraordinary level of sacrifice made by its members. Records show that the survival rate of unit personnel was proportionally the lowest of the allied aerial units throughout the war. So many lost their lives flying for the unit. Because of the solitary and secretive nature of its missions, some 144 of those lost have no known graves—perhaps making a memorial all the more important.
In my Glasgow North constituency, there were two known pilots from the unit. The first was Wing Commander Lawrence Hugh Strain. Lawrence was born at 14 Berkeley Terrace Lane in Glasgow on 12 November 1876. Little is known of his early life, but by 1913 he was resident in Edinburgh, travelling to London to gain his pilot’s licence at Brooklands, which was issued in May 1913. With the declaration of the first world war, Strain joined the Royal Naval Air Service and served as a seaplane pilot on HMS Ark Royal between 1914 and 1918, seeing service in the Dardanelles, Gallipoli and Salonika. After the first world war, he married Ellen Margaret Howard in 1921 in Sussex. Research into his second world war service is still ongoing, as little information is available, but his name appears in the operational records of the early reconnaissance work carried out by the RAF in the second world war. He passed away after the war, in 1952, in Maybole, Ayrshire.
The second was Flight Lieutenant Alastair Gibb. Alastair was born in 1918 in the Hillhead area of Glasgow, the son of Alexander and Margaret Gibb. Little is known of his early life except that, after joining the RAF, he trained as a pilot and after converting to Spitfires he joined 16 Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron, based in liberated Belgium. On 18 September 1944 he was scheduled to fly a reconnaissance sortie, but his Spitfire crashed, for reasons unknown, almost immediately after take-off and 25-year-old Alastair was killed instantly.
Both pilots are examples of the many who worked tirelessly and often alone, risking everything to gather the intelligence that shaped allied strategy and saved countless lives. That is why the planned memorial to the unit is so important. It will serve not just as a memorial to those who gave their lives, but as a lasting tribute to the often-overlooked contributions of those who worked behind the scenes—or, in this case, high above the battlefield. We owe it to them to remember their names, tell their stories and ensure their legacy lives on for generations to come.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for securing this debate. I also put on record my thanks to the Spitfire AA810 project for the work it has done to highlight the work of the Photographic Reconnaissance Units, and to get them a proper memorial. For many, the PRU will be an unknown group. Indeed, I was unaware of the unit until the project approached me. People will, of course, have seen the photographs many times in books, in museums and in films, but we rarely think about how those photographs were gathered, or the person behind the camera. As we have heard, over 26 million pictures were taken.
Preparing for this debate, I could think of only one portrayal of a reconnaissance pilot in popular fiction: the role played by Alec Guinness in the film “Malta Story”. An accurate portrayal, it showed his character undertaking missions alone, with only his camera as defence. As we know, many of the PRU missions were undertaken without ammunition, and only the pilot’s skill and training to get them out of trouble. In the film—this speech contains spoilers, but the film is over 70 years old, so I hope that will not cause issues—Alec Guinness’s character is killed on a mission. That is, of course, poignant, as so many of these men lost their lives in that way. In discussions about the campaign, I am aware that six reconnaissance pilots were from West Ham. I wish to put their names on the record and say a few remarks about them.
Flying Officer George Borrett was born in June 1920. He was a clerk in a shipping agent when he joined up in 1939. We know little of his RAF career, but we know that he survived the war and died in Epsom in 2007. Sadly, all we know about Flight Lieutenant Ronald Kemp-Lewis is that he was born in West Ham and served in the PRU. Flight Sergeant Alan McLaren, the son of Ernest and Lily McLaren, trained as a Spitfire pilot and served in 683 Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron in the Mediterranean. On 18 August 1944, he failed to return from a mission to photograph Udine in Italy. His remains are missing and he is one of the 144 with no known grave. He was 23 years old.
Aircraftman First Class John Phypers served in 541 Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron at RAF Benson, Oxfordshire. Sadly, he was badly troubled by the ongoing stress of the war, and took his own life on the base on 16 June 1943, aged 39. Flight Lieutenant Arnold Rumsey was shot down on a mission to photograph the Scheldt estuary, where the Dutch royal naval shipyards are located. The pilot of the plane drowned, but Arnold and the rest of the crew were taken prisoner. He spent the rest of the conflict as a prisoner of war, and survived. Warrant Officer Anthony Sams was born in West Ham in January 1923; he joined up in December 1941. We know very little, other than he served in the PRU and survived the war, dying in Hornchurch in December 2001, aged 78.
I hope that, by putting their names on the record, I have allowed those men something of a memorial to their service and sacrifice. Perhaps, by putting them on the record, I may encourage people who knew or remember them—or, indeed, unleash that amateur army of genealogists that we are so good at producing in this country—to come forward with more details, so that we can properly record their names and service.
I very much support the work to create a permanent memorial in recognition of all the incredible, dedicated reconnaissance pilots who served our country between 1939 and 1945. I also commit that I will work to create a local memorial in Newham, so we can honour those six men from West Ham and any others who served from the wider borough, to remember both nationally and locally the service and sacrifice of this incredible unit.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for securing this very important debate. I am honoured to speak today in support of the long-overdue recognition for one of the most courageous and least understood elements of our second world war effort—the RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit. Formed on 24 September 1939, the PRU operated in the shadows, yet it was utterly central to the allied war effort. Its pilots flew unarmed, alone and at extreme risk, capturing more than 26 million images across all theatres of war.
Those same-day photographs provided around 80% of the intelligence used in allied strategic planning—used in the Cabinet war rooms, for the Dambusters raid and for D-day. Although Enigma cracked the codes, it took days to decipher them; the PRU got intelligence in front of commanders by nightfall. It was, in the words of many, the most efficient intelligence-gathering operation of the war, but it came at a heavy price. Their aircraft—modified Spitfires and Mosquitoes—carried no armour, guns or even radios, and of the 1,747 known aircrew, 628 were killed. Nearly a third of those are still missing today. The average age of those brave pilots was just 24.
Among them were two heroes from my Epsom and Ewell constituency. Squadron Leader Frank Gerald “Jerry” Fray, educated at the City of London Freemen’s School in Ashtead, brought back the iconic photographs of the Dambusters raid. He completed two operational tours and later commanded RAF squadrons in India and Germany. Flight Lieutenant William George Poulter, born in Leatherhead in 1914, trained to fly Spitfires in the RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit and by the end of the war he was serving in the middle east. He later went on to become a civilian pilot, and his quiet contribution deserves our loudest thanks.
Despite their sacrifice, there is still no national memorial to the men and women of the PRU. That is why I back the efforts of the Spitfire AA810 project, which has campaigned tirelessly since 2018 for a national monument near to the Churchill War Rooms, where their work shaped the course of history. The planned memorial will also honour the 635 photographic interpreters, including 195 women, who turned the aerial images into actionable intelligence. Without them, we would have had 26 million photos but no intelligence to act upon.
It was an international effort, with personnel from more than 24 nations, from the USA to Fiji and from Brazil to Poland. With such widespread representation, the PRU is one of the best examples of international collaborative work against fascism. Ministers have indicated support and welcomed public fundraising for the memorial, and I welcome that the Government are now helping to bring it to fruition. These brave individuals deserve to be remembered; let us ensure their story is no longer hidden in the shadows, but carved permanently into the stone of our national memory.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz, and to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on the important subject of the contribution of the Royal Air Force Photographic Reconnaissance Unit during the second world war. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for securing today’s debate. This is a timely and fitting discussion as we mark 80 years since VE Day and VJ Day, and an opportunity to reflect on the immense contribution of a group whose role has not had the recognition it rightfully deserves, but was absolutely vital to the allied war effort.
The missions flown by the PRU were among the most dangerous of the war. What lingers most in my mind is the nature of that risk and the quiet, unseen, uncelebrated courage it demanded. These young pilots flew solo into enemy airspace, unarmed and in unmarked aircraft, without recognition or fanfare. Their missions were secret, and many did not return.
We rightly honour those who fought on the frontline, those whose bravery was visible, shared and publicly recognised. As a former Royal Marine who served in conflict zones, I know at first hand the reassurance that comes from seeing the whites of a colleague’s eyes in the thick of danger—the unspoken bond that comes from facing fear side by side. But the pilots of the PRU did not have that comfort. Their missions were long, silent and solitary. They flew alone, deep into enemy territory, without escort, unarmed and exposed. I cannot begin to imagine the isolation they must have felt, or the courage it took to take off knowing that the odds were often against them coming home.
It is through speaking about that kind of service, and attempting to put ourselves in their place, that we begin to appreciate the full scale of their sacrifice. Members across this House have done a sterling job in raising constituents’ names and experiences, and in keeping their memory alive. The hon. Member for Carlisle—the daughter of a world war two veteran and someone who was close to the experiences of her parents—did a fantastic job of outlining some of the big things that the PRU did.
Twenty-six million photographs is a staggering amount; 80% of the intelligence helping out the war effort came from the PRU. They saved hundreds of thousands of lives. It is truly impressive—but it came at a significant cost to their own lives, and they were willing to go out and take that risk and make that sacrifice for the wider mission. I thank the hon. Member for Carlisle for giving us an update on the memorial. I am happy to hear that it will be just a stone’s throw away from this place, outside the war rooms.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) mentioned the important figure that the death rate in the PRU was 50%. As a former solider, going into a unit and knowing that your chances of coming home were one in two would have been absolutely fear inducing. The hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) noted that someone actually committed suicide on base because of that fear.
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) made the point that members of the PRU had a life expectancy of two years. Understanding that when they joined the unit must have been harrowing. She raised an important point about the international effort behind this unit, with 22 nations involved, and told the powerful story of John Boys-Stones, who died at the age of 22. This is the first time that some of their names have been spoken publicly; it is important to do it today, and I am glad to be involved in this debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) raised the wider point that, with some of the RAF missions that we have all heard about—the dam busters, the hunt for the Bismarck, D-day—the PRU played an important role in ensuring those famous missions were able to go ahead successfully. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) also made the point that it was not just about pilots; the death toll affected ranks from sergeant up to wing commander, on the ground prepping aircraft, and while they were coming back.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is a strong and powerful voice for defence in this House, and a powerful advocate for Northern Ireland’s history. I always enjoy listening to him to hear the different sides of the story from all corners of our United Kingdom. He said a line that will stick with me: we are the keepers and guardians of the PRU’s history, and we must honour that and carry it forward. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talked about her constituent James, who died in an unrelated accident—a heart attack on the way back—but played a vital part in the PRU’s mission. His name should be included.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) spoke about the need for altitude, speed and luck in those missions. The PRU pilots were going out unarmed and unescorted, unlike many other pilots who flew during world war two. She talked about the family service—two brothers who served together in the RAF. From a parent’s perspective, it must have been horrifying to have two children go off on secret missions and not be able to talk about their service—not to know what they were doing, but to know that they were part of a very dangerous unit.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) talked about the sheer number in unknown graves. It is not good enough. By bringing this subject to the House, we will start the process of remembering them in the proper and fitting way.
I found myself in the shoes of the hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) this time last year. Although I knew that this type of operation went ahead and that this type of intelligence was produced, I did not know much about the PRU. Over the past year, I have really enjoyed getting to understand the unit’s efforts and hearing about the personal stories and sacrifice of those involved.
Like others, I want to take a moment to honour those who served in the PRU and had ties to my home, East Devon, to ensure that their stories are told and their names remembered. One of the most remarkable stories is that of Flight Lieutenant Peter Dakeyne, who was born in Kuala Lumpur in 1917 and later settled in Budleigh Salterton, near where I live now. He was fortunate and survived the war, but he did very daring things over France and in Belgium. The stories of others ended far too soon. I want to raise the names of Flight Lieutenant Robert Donaldson, Lyndon Gordon-White, Pilot Officer Charles Ousley and Flight Lieutenant William Scafe, who did not return home. To each of them, and to the families they left behind, I offer my sincere and enduring gratitude.
Eighty years on from the end of the war, we find ourselves asking, “How do we keep these stories alive?” That was a theme that came out in almost every speech today. Fewer and fewer people hold living memory of the second world war. This may be one of the final times that veterans can come together in person and tell the stories of their experiences in world war two to the younger generations. That makes our responsibility all the greater to not just commemorate but teach, and pass on the history and, vitally, the meaning behind it. The stories we have heard today are extraordinary. They are the kinds of stories that we should be telling our children. They leave young people with a sense of pride in our country and those who protect it.
We all know that the world is not becoming a safer place. We face new and growing threats. That raises the question of how we inspire the next generation to step up and serve. We cannot simply talk about the need for recruitment; we must foster a culture that respects and values service and speaks to young people today. Yet what do we see? The RAF banned from careers fairs at university, defence firms prevented from promoting legitimate roles to students and a college at Cambridge, one of our most prestigious universities, voting to sever financial ties with the defence industry altogether.
Just imagine telling the young men and women who flew and worked for the PRU— who risked everything for our freedom—that, 80 years later, the very institutions they fought to protect would in turn be hostile to them. That is why we must keep telling these stories. We must ensure that their legacy is preserved, not distorted, and passed on honestly and with the respect it deserves.
While we honour those who served in generations past, we must also stand up for those who have served more recently. Just days ago, 30 veterans who served in Northern Ireland sat in the Public Gallery during a Westminster Hall debate about the Government’s proposal to use a remedial order to reverse parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. That change could see veterans prosecuted for actions taken during Operation Banner, often in extreme circumstances and decades ago. The cross-party support expressed in today’s debate is encouraging and speaks to the strength of feeling across the House about commemorating those who serve. But tribute alone is not enough. It is not acceptable to stand in this Chamber and honour veterans one day, only to abandon them the next. If we are serious about valuing service, we must honour all of it and all those who gave it to us. I urge the Government to change course on that issue.
I understand that more than 200 Members from eight parties have now lent their support to a formal memorial recognising those who served in the PRU. I place on record my full backing for that proposal. It is overdue. I look forward to visiting the memorial once it is formally unveiled. I also join the hon. Member for Carlisle in calling for the Ministry of Defence to offer departmental assistance to those working to finalise the list of names. I understand that all publicly available sources have been exhausted, and it would be a real disservice if any names were missed. We must ensure that the memorial is complete and accurate for all those who served.
I thank the hon. Member once again for bringing forward this debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
Thank you, Ms Vaz, for your chairship. I welcome this fantastic debate on the role of the RAF photographic reconnaissance unit in world war two. I will not detract from the debate, which aims to recognise those individuals, by trying to score political points. We will talk about those brave men, and indeed women, who fought to protect the very freedoms we enjoy.
One of the key messages from this debate is that, if we step back and look at the current geopolitical situation, it is very fragile. Across the nation, our connection with defence is, in some cases, limited or getting less and less as the generations go on. It is really important that the stories of the PRU and other units are amplified and used as a mechanism to reconnect people in an interesting and valiant way.
If we move forward five to 10 years, and are called upon to serve nationally, it is really important that we understand where our freedoms came from, and how this great place has been collectively protected by the brave young men and women of this nation. I will make one correction to what the hon. and gallant Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) said: there were 31 veterans present in this room who served in Northern Ireland. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman did, but I did, and I would like the record to state 31 veterans, not 30.
Returning to the importance of this debate, the era of modern warfare—where satellites and drones can scrutinise enemy positions and provide intelligence, insight and understanding—reinforces the achievement of the RAF’s PRUs for the simple reason that what they did was absolutely remarkable. Back then, gathering critical evidence of enemy targets could hardly be more perilous. The men of the photographic reconnaissance units, whose job it was to fly the planes armed with nothing more than lethal cameras, suffered the second highest attrition rate of any airborne unit during the conflict.
Without the extraordinary courage of those men, we could not have traced and sunk the twin battleships, Bismarck and Tirpitz, which were the national pride of the German fleet. We could not have protected convoys of ships in the north Atlantic that were bringing critical supplies from the United States, essential to the war effort. We could not have disabled the experimental rocket works, greatly delaying the development of the V2; who knows where that would have gone, if the PRU had not provided the intelligence and allowed subsequent strikes to degrade it?
We could not have conducted the fantastic Dambusters raid, which not only held strategic value but was a huge morale boost back here in the UK. Most of all, we could not have planned D-day as successfully as we did without collecting precise photographs of German positions across the whole of the French coast. It is not only about nationally significant moments like those but the day in, day out flights on which those pilots conducted consistent regular operations over enemy-held territory. Those are just a few examples of how British airborne reconnaissance units played a fundamental role in actually winning the war. Those pilots flew mostly alone in single-engine planes, without guns to defend themselves—just heavy fuel tanks to carry them over exceptionally long distances.
Let us take ourselves out of this place today and imagine a pilot sitting on a misty airfield somewhere in middle England. With the mist coming in, they go and get in their aircraft. Prior to boarding, they have been briefed that they will go over a certain area to take photographs, but they were not told why in any way, shape or form, because if they are captured, that information would be exceptionally important to the adversary. The pilot jumps in their plane and flies over enemy territory, but there is not a wingman on their left or right, and there is a minimal escape and evasion plan should they be shot down. The pilot is on their own for hours on end, through all weathers, and often attacked by flak and other aircraft. What they did is truly brave and remarkable.
Many of them, unfortunately, did not return. In November 1942, an Air Ministry report found that PRU pilots flying single-engine planes had a 31% chance of surviving their first tour of operations. That is 300 hours. Think about having a 31% chance of surviving that. The overall PRU death rate was nearly 50%, yet those men successfully brought back more than 20 million images—transforming British intelligence gathering—whether they were operating over the Norwegian fjords or the Burmese jungle, or providing equally crucial imagery after Allied attacks to assess the accuracy and extent of bomb damage.
These pilots often flew deception operations that were tactically irrelevant but could be strategically important by diverting enemy resources and confusing enemy plans. It is also important to remember that, while that was the front end, behind them sat a huge number of interpreters and analysts, many of them women, who were employed to analyse the images brought back from those lines and interpret them for the senior command to work out what exactly they meant. Their part in the history of the PRU was an integral part of the war effort.
However, compared with many other units in our wartime armed forces, the units remain relatively unrecognised. They are commemorated as part of other main memorials, such as the RAF memorial on the Victoria Embankment, the RAF Bomber Command memorial in Green Park and the RAF Coastal Command memorial in Westminster Abbey. They are also included in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s marked graves, but a dedicated national memorial would be a fitting way to recognise the scale of their vital contribution to defeating the Nazis.
I know this is something my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) is passionate about, and I thank her for securing a debate that helps to acknowledge the wider requirement for defence to connect with society and for society to connect with defence and recognise why it is so important. More widely, her voice is also important in raising the profile of this memorial campaign. It is one small step but, collectively with lots of other stuff that is going on, it is a really important narrative that I am sure both sides of the House support and champion.
I particularly congratulate the hard work and perseverance of the Spitfire AA810 Project in progressing the memorial campaign. The group carries that name for a good reason—Spitfire AA810 was a specially modified reconnaissance aircraft used by the PRU, completing 14 long-range operational sorties during six months of service during the war. When we consider that those sorties might have been five hours long, predominantly over highly-guarded enemy territory, Spitfire AA810 had a significantly longer career than many other planes in the fleet—and fortunately so.
However, on 5 March 1942, on its way to catch sight of the Tirpitz, Spitfire AA810 was attacked by two Messerschmitts and crashed into the Norwegian mountains. Pilot Alastair ‘Sandy’ Gunn, who was mentioned earlier, managed to eject himself before impact, but he was badly burned. He was forced to hand himself in to the Germans, who sent him to the infamous Stalag Luft III, where he was part of the breakout immortalised in the film “The Great Escape”. The PRU is actually recognised in almost all such films. The imagery, intelligence and operations that took place were all underpinned by the PRU.
Sandy was eventually caught after that great escape. He was interrogated by the Gestapo and, tragically, shot. However, that was not the end of the aircraft’s story. Spitfire AA810 was recovered in 2018 from the Norwegian site where it had lain for 76 years. Fortunately, much of that aircraft had been preserved by peat and snow, so it presented a unique opportunity for restoration and rebuild back to an airworthy state. That has been taking shape over recent years.
Let me address some of the questions that right hon. and hon. Members have raised, and in particular, respond to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle on the campaign for a national memorial. I wish the project every success; it has my full support. With a prominent and fitting location chosen outside the Churchill War Rooms here in Westminster, it will be an exemplary addition to London’s memorials.
For the record, I have to state that the funding of such memorials remains a preserve of public subscriptions, driven by individuals and organisations. In line with the long-standing policy position of successive Governments, Ministers cannot support them in an official capacity, but in a personal one, I absolutely support it. I have written to the chief executive of the Royal Parks charity and Tony Hoskins of the Spitfire AA810 Project to express my hope that the plans for a Westminster memorial are successful. My hon. Friend can rely on me personally for that. I can only re-emphasise that conviction here today, and assure her that we welcome the efforts of all those who are working to get the memorial built.
Regarding the names from the PRU, I support a meeting with MOD officials to see what we can do. The National Archives is the main route, but if we have exhausted those records, I would be really interested to look at where else records are, or whether the MOD can help. It will be riddled with GDPR issues, I am sure, but we can talk through it and see whether we can find a solution or come up with some innovative way to make that information available.
Let me also address the question of how long it will take to get the memorial. Interestingly, this is a Department for Culture, Media and Sport issue, so I will write to ensure that my support is registered. I know that it is a private issue, but I also know that the Department is tracking and moving this forward, so I will make sure that I give it a nudge. I will write to the Department personally, if I can, to make sure we support it.
I am not going to devalue this debate. It is about the PRU. Given that it is just a matter of weeks since we commemorated the 80th anniversary of VE Day, it is time that the PRU’s contribution to victory in the second world war and to almost every battle is fully recognised, and that a national memorial ensures that we always remember not just the heroes in the stories but why we have a defence capability in the first place. It is an absolutely fantastic initiative, which gets my full support. It helps us to understand the men and women who helped to serve our country and who sacrificed so much, and importantly, what was required to protect our democracy and the great freedoms we enjoy in this nation today.
Ms Minns
It has been a genuine privilege to hear so many tributes and stories about those who served in the RAF unarmed reconnaissance units from so many constituencies. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), West Ham and Beckton (James Asser), North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), and particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) and Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for their comments.
I am really grateful to Opposition Members for their extremely thoughtful and kind comments about the people who came from their constituencies to serve our country so bravely. I pay tribute to the comments made by the right hon. Members for Tatton (Esther McVey) and Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his wonderful contributions to all our debates. I also thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), for sharing stories from her constituents.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), for his contribution, which brought to life the stories of the people who came from his constituency. I do think it is a little regrettable that, sadly, this debate, which was introduced to pay tribute to those who served in the photographic reconnaissance unit and to thank those who have for six years driven the AA810 campaign, was momentarily and unnecessarily diverted to score a cheap political point.
I would like to return to the purpose of this debate, which is to pay tribute to those who served so gallantly, so bravely and so selflessly all those years ago. I cannot begin to imagine the absolute terror, which the hon. and gallant Minister spoke about, in that moment before take-off, knowing that they might not return home that evening. We can never thank enough those who did return and those who paid that ultimate sacrifice. We should also place on the record our thanks to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for the work that it does throughout the year to ensure that we have a permanent remembrance for all those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.
Let me pause momentarily to thank two individuals from the campaign, Tony Hoskins and David Robertson, for all they have done in Parliament. We have heard this afternoon just how much it has meant to all of us that your contribution has been able to bring to life what happened in our constituencies over 80 years ago, and I thank you for that.
Ms Minns
I very much welcome the Minister’s comments. I am sure that, with the right will, those riddles of GDPR can be successfully negotiated and we can finally have the full stories of the remaining people who served so gallantly in the PRU. On that note, I pay my respects once again to all the airmen and to all those who served in one shape or another in the PRU. They served their country with such distinction, and we remember the sacrifices that they made—lest we forget.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Thank you to all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role of the RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit during the Second World War.