Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Thérèse Coffey

3rd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I know how much this issue mattered to her when she was in the Home Office. Traditionally, the sisters will stay in places of conflict and real difficulty despite the threats that they receive. In the past, a religious such as a nun or a priest would have been given some sort of protection, but unfortunately that is no longer the case, and in fact such people are starting to become targets.

I am led to believe that 12% of the world’s nuns are in India. India is an amazing country, but many of us will have been horrified by the regular and active persecution of Christians in parts of that country. Of course the UK Government need their important relationships with our Commonwealth friend, which recently hosted a very successful G20 summit and is a very important part of the global economy, but they also need to challenge aspects of the way in which it deals with freedom of religion and belief. I believe that our Ministers do that successfully, but it is of additional benefit to have a special envoy of the Prime Minister’s who works with many countries, through the international alliance, on raising these issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) mentioned a case that she had tackled in Nigeria.

[Fiona Bruce]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. May I augment what she has just said about the international alliance? Just this week, three members of its council of experts produced a report on the continuing atrocities in Manipur, which have been going on for a year. I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary has spoken in such positive terms about our experts’ first report, which was produced a year ago, and I hope that Members, and those who are listening to the debate, will look at the further report led by the well-known and prestigious former BBC reporter David Campanale. Those atrocities in Manipur require much more attention.

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is right to make that point, and a permanent role will continue to bring that focus. As the Bill makes clear, staff and accommodation will be provided when they are considered to be necessary, which I think is important.

This role has been occupied by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti)—whom my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary commended when I was speaking to him the other day in the Vatican —and now we have my hon. Friend, whose approach has been exemplary. The report commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) when he was Foreign Secretary led to the Truro review, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton referred at length, but it is important to note that this role has evolved, and is now not simply about Christianity. Events targeting Christianity were the initial trigger, and gave rise to the Foreign Office working on this, but my hon. Friend has spoken eloquently about the need to expand the role further, and has undertaken to do that. She mentioned that the United States also has a permanent office. I believe that that will trigger the potential for posts elsewhere in the world, and that has to be a force for good.

We need people who can focus solely on these matters. The Bill does not require them to be politicians. For what it is worth, I think that a sensible balance can be struck, but that will be for the Prime Minister to decide in the future. Nor is the Bill trying to create a platform for someone who is disgruntled. I believe that a Prime Minister, regardless of which political party runs this country, will have the wisdom to appoint someone who is seeking headlines not for their own purposes, but on behalf of those who have been deprived of the freedom to practise a religion or hold a belief.

I am conscious that the Front Benchers are yet to speak and that progress needs to be made on various pieces of legislation today, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) also wishes to speak, so I will abbreviate my comments. This issue really matters to me, and I believe it matters to my constituents. It matters that we have a world where these sorts of freedoms are treasured and protected, and having a special envoy on freedom of religion or belief in the name of the UK Prime Minister will help to make sure that happens.

Assisted Dying

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Thérèse Coffey

Monday 29th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Living with terminal illness is distressing and difficult for the person involved and for their family and friends. The cases we regularly hear about are truly moving and evoke the highest degree of compassion. When and how someone passes from this life is challenging and a very emotional topic.

When I raised this issue in Parliament back in 2011, I expressed my concern about how the practice of withholding water and food in order to accelerate someone’s death had been deemed lawful in court, although I was relieved that after the Neuberger review that was effectively stopped across the country. Assisting or encouraging suicide is a criminal offence under section 2 of the 1961 Act. That Act was updated by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and there was an attempt then to change the law to make assisted suicide legal in this country.

I was not in the House at the time of the 2009 Act’s passage, but fortunately that attempt failed. What did come, though, were guidelines for the Crown Prosecution Service, put in place by the then Director of Public Prosecutions—now the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition —which seem to have stood the test of time. Back in March 2012, when this House debated those rules, it voted against the proposal to make them statutory guidance while adding its support for palliative care and hospital provision.

There has been a lot of talk about how somebody comes to the end of their life, but there is an overwhelming difference between clinicians knowingly giving medication to help accelerate someone’s death—mindfully setting out to kill—and giving something that may help deal with the pain. However, I think such ethical issues need to be considered as stand-alone Bills. Unfortunately, there are too many attempts to make quite significant changes to ethical issues through Government Bills that are often rushed through, and so significant changes happen with very little debate, if any at all.

On 11 December 2015, 330 MPs voted against changing the law, which is three quarters of the MPs who voted that day. That was not an insignificant debate, and 70% of the House participated in that Division. Since then, no Member of Parliament has come forward with a Bill for the House to consider, either through the ballot or by presenting a Bill. While I know that a lot of constituents would like a change in the law, I still think that the House would not make one. We have seen the issues that have put doubt into people’s minds.

Many Members have talked about the experiences of other countries. The evidence of the acceleration that has happened around the world shows exactly why we should not change the law. In Washington state in 2009, a quarter of people applied because they thought they were a burden. That rose to 59%.

[Fiona Bruce]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the same time that this country’s Parliament voted against legalising assisted suicide, a different decision was made in Canada? In 2016, the first year of medically assisted deaths, 1,000 people chose to have one. By 2022, more than 13,000 people had availed themselves of that law, representing a 30% year-on-year increase.

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend points out how this starts to increase quite significantly. It was also in Canada that a distinguished Paralympian who was looking for help with their disability was offered assisted dying as an alternative to adaptation of their home.

There has been a lot of discussion today about elderly people, but we are not just talking about elderly people. We are talking about vulnerable people. We are talking about people with disability. We are talking about people who could be taken advantage of to end their lives early and who may have that element of being considered a burden. People in this House have put forward the view of Matthew Parris that it is perfectly rational to say that you are a burden, and that you should potentially end your life. No one should feel such a burden on their family, their friends and society that they should end their life early.

While I will upset some of my constituents, I hold a different view from them on this matter, as I have done consistently, and I will continue to want to leave the law as it stands.