UK-German Relations

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) for securing this important and timely debate.

The Liberal Democrats believe that we are stronger, safer and more prosperous when we build serious, long-term partnerships with our European allies and colleagues. UK-German relations are a litmus test of our wider relationship with Europe. In an age of instability, we face an unpredictable US Administration, as we have already heard, and we have seen rising interference from the likes of China and continued Russian aggression. In that environment, defence and economic security become even more inseparable than they already were. That is why a closer and more pragmatic, productive and co-operative relationship with Germany is strategically imperative to us all.

Germany is Europe’s largest economy and one of the EU’s most influential states. Trade between the UK and Germany accounts for about 8.5% of UK trade, and supports nearly half a million jobs. I am lucky to have the UK headquarters of multiple offshoots of German companies in my Surrey Heath constituency, such as Stihl, the German manufacturer of chainsaws. My wife’s job is one of those nearly half a million jobs that I mentioned, working as she does for BMW in the neighbouring constituency of North East Hampshire. That is not intended to be a declaration of interest—it is merely a statement of fact—but I am very grateful to BMW for the electric Mini, which I am lucky enough to occasionally be allowed to drive.

The Kensington treaty, signed in July 2025, established a comprehensive framework for UK-German co-operation across defence, trade, climate, education and science, and that is undoubtedly the right direction of travel. However, a treaty is only as meaningful as its delivery.

Let me first turn to defence. At the Munich security conference, the Prime Minister called for deeper economic and security co-operation between the UK and the EU, and for a stronger expression of European hard power. At a time of heightened geopolitical tension, nobody can doubt that strengthening co-operation with Europe is firmly in Britain’s national interest. Securing full participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe fund would undoubtedly support UK defence manufacturers and strengthen collective rearmament. Our partnership with Germany should support Ukraine’s recovery and deepen collaboration through the Trinity House agreement, with joint exercises, industrial co-ordination and capability development. If Britain wants influence over Europe’s defence architecture, it must be present where capability priorities are shaped.

On the economy, in 2015 the UK was Germany’s fifth largest trading partner, but by 2022 we had sadly fallen to 11th, reflecting the growing trade frictions between our two economies. In 2025, the Financial Times reported that German car manufacturer BMW had paused its £600 million investment in electric vehicles in Oxford. When advanced manufacturing decisions are finely balanced, as they so often are, added trade friction and regulatory divergence make the United Kingdom a less certain destination for investment.

The British Chamber of Commerce in Germany echoed those sentiments by warning that post-Brexit paperwork and border delays are pushing UK firms away from their largest export markets, with some customers turning to EU-based suppliers instead. If we are serious about restoring competitiveness, we must build trust and reduce those trade barriers. A bespoke EU-UK customs union might just stand a chance of easing some of those rules of origin burdens, lowering border costs and providing manufacturers with the certainty that they need.

Finally on cultural exchange—a topic that has frequently been raised in this debate—the Kensington treaty recognises that relationships are built not only by Governments but by young people and communities. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) mentioned town twinning. Not wanting to be left out of the excitement, I am very pleased to say that my Surrey Heath constituency is twinned with Bietigheim-Bissingen in Germany, and that our main popular shopping street is named Bietigheim Way, in reference to the historical connections between our two parts of the world. A UK-Germany youth summit and cross-border volunteering partnerships are absolutely critical, but so many of these programmes are vital for building long-term trust between our communities.

Three quarters of 18 to 24-year-olds voted to remain in the European Union in 2016, yet they are bearing many of the mobility costs that Brexit has imposed. They lost the freedom to study and work easily across Europe, including by participating in Erasmus, so we fundamentally welcome the UK rejoining the Erasmus scheme as a step towards rebuilding educational co-operation with Germany and across the rest of the EU. We are also calling for negotiations on a reciprocal EU youth mobility scheme with an age limit of 35, no visa fees and visas extended to three years to further and deepen that co-operation.

I again thank the hon. Member for Preston and other hon. Members for invoking the spirit of the UK-German relationship so effectively. We fundamentally believe that a closer relationship with Germany will strengthen our defence, support our economy and deepen cultural exchange.

Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I am acutely aware that this urgent question comes in the aftermath of the attempt by the hon. Member for Clacton to land on the Chagos archipelago last week, and although I might admire the hon. Member’s audacity, I am deeply concerned that his actions trivialise what is indeed a deeply serious situation and potentially render the genuine grievances and injustices felt by the Chagossians as a political backdrop to his social media feed.

However, I must also acknowledge that the hon. Member’s platform has been created only because of the vacuum created by this Government, because the wheels have undoubtedly fallen off their negotiations. They have failed to secure the support and consent of Chagossians, and they now seem to have lost the support of the President of the United States too. While either one of those things might be considered unfortunate, the combination of the two looks deeply careless.

What is the status of the negotiations right now? What is the latest position of the United States? Will the Government also take on our very long-standing concerns about the rights of Chagossians? There is clearly not widespread consent here. Will they take on the points that we have made in amendment after amendment and recognise that Chagossians have the right to self-determine their own future? Will he also accept our concerns about the finances to ensure that Britain is not left as a leaseholder of these islands if a deal goes ahead without a sitting tenant?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member refers to amendments to the Bill, and I am sure that he will understand why I will leave that to the Minister responsible for conducting the Bill through the House. On his question about the status of the negotiations, as I said, this is going through Parliament in the normal way. We are pausing for discussions with the United States, and those discussions continue.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

What we have witnessed in Gaza is a man-made humanitarian catastrophe. It has been a catastrophe both for the hostages who have endured Hamas’s brutal captivity and for the millions of Palestinian civilians whose lives, homes and communities have been devastated by Israel’s military offensive, so let me be absolutely and unequivocally clear about the Liberal Democrat position. Alongside global NGOs, aid organisations, Israeli human rights organisations and the UN commission of inquiry, we consider there to be credible evidence that the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza during the military campaign have amounted to genocide. For the avoidance of any doubt, Hamas are a terrorist organisation whose crimes on 7 October were acts of mass human atrocity that we continue to utterly and categorically condemn.

Given that reality, what matters now is accountability on all sides, which is why access to Gaza for journalists and human rights organisations is so fundamentally important. I am reminded that British journalist Ed Vulliamy exposed the existence and brutality of Serb- run detention camps in Bosnia. His reporting later contributed to the proceedings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, forming part of the evidentiary record for prosecutions that included findings of genocide. It is imperative, therefore, that we do not allow evidence in Gaza to disappear, damage to be cleared away or truth to be lost before accountability can be pursued.

However, accountability in itself is not enough, and that must sharpen our focus on what is required to move beyond the repeated cycles of violence. Only genuine progress towards a two-state solution can deliver lasting security and dignity for Palestinians and Israelis, so the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to rule out ever participating in Trump’s board of peace. Reconstruction must be co-ordinated by the United Nations with the involvement of the Palestinians, who have been excluded from Trump’s proposals. Aid must be allowed in at scale and rapidly. Hamas must be disarmed; there is no place for a genocidal terror group to take part in Palestine’s future. The UK should ban all trade with illegal Israeli settlements. Finally, the UK must deepen its engagement with the Palestinian Authority following the recognition of the state of Palestine.

International law underpins our shared liberal values and, indeed, our British values. It exists to constrain power, uphold accountability and protect civilians across the world. I urge the Government to act now.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Sudan

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because sexual violence in conflict has too often been ignored, and it has been too easy to turn away from the women and children who are victims of these truly horrendous crimes. We are determined to ensure that that is not the case. I also visited, in both Ethiopia and Chad, some of the clinics and support services for victims of sexual violence, as well as some of the other services for which the UK continues to provide support and funding. We need to ensure that those services can also be provided to the victims in Sudan.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. Nobody could fail to be moved by the horrific tales from Adré. As she has said, accountability is crucial, and a future ICC court case will rely on incredibly hard work being done now to secure witness statements, preserve digital files, build structured casework and put in place strict and disciplined chain-of-custody mechanisms. All of that requires skill and expertise on the frontline. What is the UK doing to support the international effort to preserve and verify now, so that a future court case is possible and the perpetrators of these appalling crimes can be truly held accountable?

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s incredibly important question. This is exactly why in November, at the Human Rights Council, the UK led on a resolution to establish a fact-finding mission into El Fasher. Teams have been sent to pursue and gather exactly that kind of evidence, and we are expecting their fact-finding report before the end of the month. While we continue to hold the chair of the UN Security Council, that report will inform our discussions. I do not yet know what it will have found or how much progress they will have managed to make, but from everything we have seen so far, I fear that its conclusions are likely to be truly damning and disturbing.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Hoare, I am worried that the longer you speak, the longer you will disappoint other colleagues who are hoping to contribute later in the debate, and I would not want to ruin your reputation on that front. This feels like a continuation of the debate. The Minister may or may not wish to respond to that point during his closing speech, but my job is to make sure that as many Members as possible who have sat through this debate get to put their voice on the record.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

Please forgive my slightly croaky tones today, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Please keep your speech short.

[Dr Pinkerton]

I will do my best, having received that cue from you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This Bill returns to us from the other place with amendments that raise serious questions about the governance, cost and durability of the treaty concerning the future of Diego Garcia and the wider Chagos archipelago. For decades, decisions about the Chagos islands were taken without the consent of the Chagossian people. That was the defining feature of the injustice that they have experienced. My concern, shared by many across this House and others in this place, is that unless the Government properly consider the Lords amendments, Parliament risks giving statutory effect to a framework that lacks the safeguards necessary for accountability, legitimacy and long-term sustainability. That is precisely what the Lords amendments seek to address.

In the things that they have proposed, the Government have acknowledged the historic wrongdoing to the Chagossian people. They have recognised the right of return in principle and proposed a £40 million trust fund to address the harms caused by forced displacement. The framework before us today provides limited assurance, however, that the Chagossian people will have any meaningful agency over the decisions and structures that will shape their future. That matters, because legitimacy is not derived from intergovernmental agreement alone. It rests on whether those affected can participate meaningfully in decisions taken about their homeland.

At the core of the United Nations charter lies the principle of self-determination. Article 1.2 could not be clearer. One of the purposes of the United Nations is:

“To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples”.

We reasonably expected to have the opportunity to vote to reaffirm our commitment to the UN charter and, crucially, our commitment to the right of Chagossians as a distinct, albeit displaced people to self-determine their future. It is therefore deeply regrettable that Members across this House have been denied that opportunity today.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am very sorry about his throat. I suspect that he, like me, is keen for Greenlanders to have the right of self-determination. Time and again, we have sat through the speeches of Ministers who have harped on about the need to defend their right to a say in what happens to them. Will the hon. Gentleman compare and contrast that with the situation faced by the Chagossians, and explain why the Danes can put into law the right for their people to have a say in their future but we are about to rule it out for people to whom we owe a duty of care?

[Dr Pinkerton]

If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me for two minutes, I will get to precisely that point.

It is shameful that a meaningful referendum was not the starting point of this Government’s approach, which left Opposition parties to insist on it through amendments. It is equally shameful that this principle has today been rejected on the grounds of cost. What price do the Government place on self-determination? Among Chagossians, this will be received for what it is: justice layered upon injustice.

This Government, and Governments before them, have routinely defended our overseas territories in the international arena on the basis of the self-determining rights of their citizens. Today, this Government rightly defend Greenland on that same basis, asserting the right of Greenlanders to determine their own future. It is therefore with deep regret that I speak in support of that right and of that principle as expressed through Lords amendments 2 and 3, knowing that we will have no opportunity to vote in favour of those amendments when a Division is called.

In respect of accountability and oversight, Lords amendments 5 and 6 would reinforce Parliament’s role in scrutinising the financial commitments of this agreement. They would ensure that the House is not asked to authorise long-term expenditure without clarity on its scale, duration and assumptions. The amendments would require transparency in the way in which costs are calculated, and ensure that Parliament retains control over future payments. That is not obstruction; it is a proper exercise of parliamentary responsibility, and one owed to future Administrations and to the public. The amendments would also give the Government a mechanism to terminate the deal and all future payments to Mauritius should Mauritius fail to honour its obligations.

In May, the Prime Minister said that the deal would cost up to £3.4 billion over 99 years. However, freedom of information disclosures suggest an initial estimate closer to £34.7 billion, a figure that we have already heard today. That disparity risks further undermining trust in this Government, and confidence in their wider approach to public spending. At a time when families across Britain face cost of living pressures, Parliament is entitled—indeed expected—to demand clarity before committing taxpayers to potentially vast long-term liabilities that will endure well beyond any of our lifetimes.

In respect of security and durability, Lords amendment 1 addresses the strategic importance of Diego Garcia, and would ensure that the United Kingdom is not locked into ongoing payments should the military use of the base become impossible. Given the rapidly shifting nature of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States, particularly under its current President, the amendment is essential to ensure that we are not bound into a long-term lease without a similarly long-term tenant. No one in this House or the other place disputes the strategic importance of Diego Garcia to our national security, and to global security more broadly. The amendment reflects that reality, and raises legitimate questions about the long-term viability of this deal.

Let me now return briefly to Lords amendments 5 and 6, which together form a coherent and, in my view, proportionate package. They would reinforce parliamentary oversight, protect the public purse, and hold the Government’s financial commitments to account. The other place has not sought to frustrate the Bill; it has asked whether Parliament is prepared to proceed without sufficient safeguards on cost, governance and legitimacy concerns.

I again place on record my disappointment that Lords amendments 2 and 3 were not selected for today’s debate. They would have provided the Chagossian people with a referendum, allowing them a direct and meaningful say over their future—something that remains conspicuously absent despite repeated assurances about consultation.

The Chagossians are not, and should not be, diplomatic collateral. They are not a note in the marginalia of an agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. They are a people who have been treated badly by our country and are now deserving of agency, dignity and justice. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrats urge the Government to accept Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6. More than that, however, we urge the Government to pause, to reflect on the changing geopolitical circumstances in which we find ourselves, and to think again about whether this is the right approach for us, for the Chagossian people, and for our future security.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

It has been said that some hon. and right hon. Members have come to the debate on Chagos late in the day. That is right. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has been banging on about Chagos for decades, and I admire him for doing so. I first became concerned when I saw how much it would cost the United Kingdom to pay for something that we own. As a litmus test, I asked myself whether I could explain to my constituents why we are going to pay an island nation that has no direct connection with Diego Garcia.

Oral Answers to Questions

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

We have consistently advocated for peaceful and credible elections, and we encourage any disputes to be addressed through peaceful and legal means. In relation to the opposition leader, we have engaged across the political spectrum to advocate for peaceful elections, including for the opposition candidates to be able to campaign freely and safely, and we continue to do so, including through our high commission.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

In answer to an earlier question, the Foreign Secretary said that the future of Greenland should be determined by Greenlanders and Danes, yet Members across this House are just finding out that any opportunity to give Chagossians a referendum has been stripped from this afternoon’s discussions on the Chagos Bill. Why does the Foreign Secretary think that the Chagossians do not deserve the same rights that she considers to be so fundamental to Greenlanders?

[Stephen Doughty]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are going to be discussing those issues this afternoon; we will have ample time to discuss the amendments down for consideration. He also knows that we have engaged extensively with Chagossian communities.

Iran: Protests

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

As the Home Secretary has said, we are aware of the very considerable concern that the ongoing protests have caused, particularly in places of real sensitivity such as outside synagogues, and we are taking measures to address it.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

At the weekend, I visited several Iranian-owned businesses in my community to show my support and solidarity. The business owners told me that they have relatives inside Iran who, due to the internet shutdowns, are going to increasingly extreme lengths to pick up information from the outside world, including travelling close to the border with Iraq to pick up a mobile phone signal or across towns to connect to the community-owned Starlink network. They expressed their frustration at the lack of activity from the British Government, as they see it, but they also expressed their fears that the US Government have marched protesters up to the top of the hill and left them abandoned there. What co-ordination has the Minister had with our American allies—if I can still call them that—on their approach? Are we aligned with them on what we are doing in Iran?

[Mr Falconer]

I understand the degree of anxiety within Iran. The restriction of the internet since 8 January is obviously a source of real concern, both to Iranians in Iran and to those with family links there, and to those few, but none the less profoundly affected, British families who have loved ones detained there, who are also suffering from the restrictions. As I said, US policy and posture towards Iran is clearly a matter for the US Government, but we are in close consultations and discussions with our American counterparts and, indeed, others.

Arctic Security

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I think the question the hon. Member raises is about the increase in defence spending, which is exactly what we are doing. We are investing—we are introducing the most substantial increase in defence spending for many years. Defence infrastructure was hollowed out under previous Governments, and that is exactly why we are increasing investment now.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

A week or so ago I asked the Foreign Secretary at the Dispatch Box: where was the red line? What was the Rubicon that would have to be crossed to lead the UK to hang together with our values-based allies in opposition to the imperialist ambitions of Donald Trump? I have to confess that I felt a brief moment of pride yesterday when I thought that Rubicon had been reached, but I have been filled with increasing fear today. I fear that we might again allow ourselves to be picked off, that we might allow ourselves again to prostrate ourselves in front of the President as we beg not to be treaded upon. So, I ask the Foreign Secretary again: what is the Rubicon that would have to be crossed? This is not just an academic question. We are, through our overseas territories in the Caribbean and in the south Atlantic, a western hemispheric nation. Is the red line the Falkland Islands?

[Yvette Cooper]

I just say to the hon. Member that what we have seen from our Prime Minister is a serious level of international leadership that is immensely important: a robust and hard-headed approach to the UK’s national interests that is the way we achieve results and have achieved results in a series of different areas. He set out this morning the principles that guide us, including the strong defence of the principle of sovereignty, and that the future of Greenland is for the Greenlanders and for the Danes to decide.

UK-France Relations

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Murray]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK and France have substantial military technology sectors, which are critical for not only our security but the rules-based international order that the relationship between the two countries props up. When it comes to new technologies, whether it is AI or military hardware and kit, the rules-based international order needs—the liberals in the world need—the UK and France at the forefront. They need our technology and defence industries to work with our political objectives to achieve that. I think that is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) was about to make.

That takes me to exactly the point I was about to make in my speech. At the UK-France summit last year, the Prime Minister and President Macron reaffirmed in the Northwood declaration the declaration from 1995 about our nuclear posture and our shared nuclear weapons objectives. They said:

“we do not see situations arising in which the vital interests of either France or the United Kingdom could be threatened without the vital interests of the other also being threatened.”

There are not many countries in the world that we could say that so baldly and so clearly about. In other words, we are saying that British security is French security, and French security is British security. Despite all the bumps in the road, that strategic truth endures.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My constituency was home to the Free French forces during the second world war, and that is representative of the kind of security relationship our countries have had in the past. May I urge the Government, through the hon. Gentleman, and in the spirit of strategic futures, to get back round the table and to ensure that we have a safe and secure SAFE—Security Action for Europe—deal to allow the UK to take part in common European defence?

[Chris Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing the history of his constituency on this important issue. SAFE is an issue that the Government and other actors in both France and the UK are working quite deeply on. Obviously, we are not in SAFE now, but we can still hope for the future.

The point about UK-France relations is not just that they are good for British or French security, but that they are good for world security, and nowhere is that clearer than in Ukraine. For example, the Storm Shadow long-range missile developed by MBDA, a joint Franco-British company, has been one of the most effective weapons supplied to Ukraine in terms of repelling Russia’s invasion.

However, this is not just about kit; it is also about political leadership. The UK and France have been at the heart of the coalition of the willing, convening 35 countries to support Ukraine’s security. That includes last week’s incredibly significant announcement that both countries are prepared to contribute ground forces in support of a future peace settlement.

At a time when we are seeing a change in strategic posture in the United States—if I can put it like that—Russian aggression in Europe, the rise of China, and crises in the middle east and South America, it is no small thing that Britain and France stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of the rules-based international order.

Nigeria: Freedom of Religion or Belief

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have been very pleased to meet Mubarak Bala twice now, most recently in person in Warsaw. He is a great credit to himself. He has suffered very unjustly as a result of being a humanist. I am sure we will hear this from the Minister, but the Government seem to be very clear that we should not be supporting blasphemy laws, and we do see people suffering as a result of them.

In the interests of time, I will move on and maybe not take any interventions for a moment.

Why does this matter to us? We are 3,000 miles away from Nigeria, but we are linked by history, culture and language, and we are linked by friendship. Nigeria and the United Kingdom have a very strong relationship. It would be easy to dismiss Nigeria’s problem as something “over there” and think that persecution of religion or belief abroad is not our problem, but that position would be irresponsible, immoral and ultimately untenable.

It is immoral because when we see other humans in need, we want to respond, as humans. How could we turn away from the suffering in Nigeria when we see families ripped apart, innocent people killed and power brokers restricting the agency, liberty and conscience of others? We in the UK have a rich history of experiencing and rejecting religious intolerance that we can share in humility, hopefully, with others. We had civil wars and riots. Those riots became debates, debates became freedoms, and those freedoms led to flourishing. The hallmark of freedom is wanting freedom for others.

That brings me to irresponsibility. It would be irresponsible to assume that Nigeria’s problems are not our own. Nigeria is playing an increasingly influential role globally. It is young, resource-rich and growing. The UN has projected that Nigeria will become the third most populous country on Earth by 2050, and as I have said, the UK is home to a substantial and growing community of Nigerian-born residents. They are a hard-working, law-abiding, enterprising part of our nation, and we are privileged to have them with us. Working well with Nigeria is in our interest for the sake of all.

Nigeria also represents a genuine democracy in a region where military Governments are common and civil society precarious. As climate change disrupts the Sahel and central Africa further, the promise of a resilient Nigeria with a strong sense of its future as a pluralist democracy cannot be understated.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I am hugely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his excellent speech. He is giving a powerful evocation of the significant crisis that exists within Nigeria in terms of intolerance and faith-related death. Can he indicate—this is a genuine question of inquiry—to what extent there are intersections with other sources of conflict such as terrorism and the resource competition he mentioned, and potentially even climate change? To what extent are those drivers of the kind of religious intolerance that we see playing out in his speech?

[David Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw other factors into the equation, whether it is competition over land in the middle belt of Nigeria, the climate change that leads to it, or other forms of identitarian conflict and competition for resources. Those things are true, without question. In my estimation it is also true that there is a specifically religious dimension, and at times a political dimension, to the persecution—I would say it can be both at the same time.

I am concerned that this can lead to a slippery slope. For example, we could compare it with the situation in China, where Tibetan Buddhists have been persecuted for years. That was later followed by a crackdown on Falun Gong and Christians, and religious prisoners ultimately end up joined by journalists, activists, trade unionists and other rabble rousers who the state would prefer not to deal with. We must robustly defend freedom of religion or belief, to avoid that slippery slope.