Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

David Smith Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I commend those family members who are really powerful advocates for their children, parents and relatives in their engagement with the medical profession. We are at real danger of treating our clinicians as though they have no care for their patients—

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I am sure that all of us in this place respect and value our medical professionals. The simple point to make is that not everyone who goes before the medical profession has the same experience or confidence as some of us in this place.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is why it is so important that we have the rigorous training and safeguards that are a fundamental part of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Rutland]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Similarly, I cannot support amendment 102, which would require doctors to ensure that there were no “remediable suicide risk factors” before conducting a preliminary discussion with the patient. There is no clear legal or clinical definition of the term “remediable suicide risk factor”, and the Bill already includes multiple checks on mental capacity and mental illness, including by independent doctors and a specialist panel. The vagueness of this amendment risks wrecking this much-needed Bill.

I emailed Karen again yesterday to ask if I could refer to her in this speech. Her father-in-law had sadly died in the time that had passed between her initial email and our exchange yesterday. The Bill was not passed in time for him and he could not benefit from it. However, Karen hoped that his story could make some small contribution to changing the law. There do not need to be more people in Karen’s father-in-law’s position, or in Aimee’s grandmother’s position—they can have choice at the end of life, and our brilliant palliative care workforce, like Karen, can have choice on the kind of care they provide too.

[David Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Tom Rutland]

I am afraid I must make progress.

I therefore hope that Members across the House will join me in supporting new clause 10, strengthening the Bill and reinforcing the fact that choice, for patients and practitioners, is at the heart of this legislation, and I hope they will oppose the amendments and new clauses that would wreck the Bill and put that choice at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The amendment is designed to stop our having a conversation about eligibility after this Bill. I want to see a Bill that stops the argument about a slippery slope and gives equitable access to people with all health conditions.

[David Smith]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Tom Gordon]

I will make a little progress.

We have gone further than any other jurisdiction in terms of safeguards. Why, then, if we are satisfied that our safeguards are robust, are we excluding those with neurodegenerative diseases—people who are terminally ill—on the basis of an arbitrary timeframe? We say that the Bill is about choice, but for someone who has already lost the ability to speak or move and who knows that they are on a rapid decline, what choice do we offer? Are we saying, “Wait until your prognosis hits six months, if a doctor can say so with confidence, and then hope that you will still have the cognitive ability to apply”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

I will make some progress.

The amendment is not about eroding the careful work that the Bill Committee has done to expand the rigorous safeguards already in the Bill; it is about ensuring that some people with the cruellest terminal conditions are not left out of the options that we are seeking to give others.

[David Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Gordon]

I am bringing my remarks to a close.

If we believe in dignity, let us ensure it is a dignity that includes everyone; if we believe in autonomy, let us not deny it to those who may lose their voice tomorrow; and if we believe in compassion, let it be a compassion that recognises the lived reality of all terminal illnesses and does not consign those with MND to the status quo.

Persecution of Christians

David Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this debate.

I declare an interest as the recently appointed UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. In the three months for which I have been in the role, it has become evident to me that the sad truth is that the scale of religious persecution is growing in the world. In 2019, the Truro report, which gave rise to the role that I am now honoured to hold, commented:

“Christianity now faces the possibility of being wiped-out in parts of the Middle East.”

Christians are suffering from external threats almost everywhere.

Here is a story of persecution that is familiar to many in this room. An effigy of a religious leader was paraded through the streets, hysterical graffiti was chalked on the walls, and books were written criticising people as fifth columnists and traitors. They were suspected, mistreated and had only recently been given the freedom to run for public office. That is not Pakistan or Nigeria; it was London in the 1850s, in a frenzy about newly emancipated Catholics. It is a crucial part of this debate to acknowledge that our country’s credibility on freedom of religion or belief is not because we are holier than thou, but because we got it wrong in the past.

Our country’s mistakes on religious toleration and the learning we take from them are the basis on which we can condemn the horror being inflicted on Christians around the world. I am proud to be the MP for North Northumberland. My constituency is home to Holy Island, which witnessed some of the earliest and most sustained attacks on British Christians in the Viking raids. Over the centuries, Northumberland has come to believe deeply in freedom, tolerance and the right for everybody to believe and confess how they wish.

Today, parts of the world such as parts of Nigeria are becoming playgrounds for jihadists, who are freewheeling through the region. I am reminded of the story of Bishop Wilfred, who I met last month. On Christmas Day last year, 47 Christians in Wilfred’s diocese were killed in militant attacks, with another 6,800 believers displaced. We have already heard accounts from around the middle east. In the middle east, the ancient home of three of the world’s global religions, Christian communities are in freefall. In 2014, there were almost 1 million Christians in Iraq; today there are only 200,000. The point is clear: despite the global growth of the Church, Christians remain vulnerable to persecution and conflict.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as the special envoy for freedom of religion and belief. I wish it had not taken the Government six months to appoint him, but I am sure that he will approach the role with the alacrity that it demands.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the attrition of global Christianity and the oppression of Christian faiths around the world. Does he agree that in the discourse in which we engage in Parliaments in the west and in societies where religion is tolerated, we need to accept that there is no league table of religious persecution? I am concerned that sometimes Christianity is seen as being at the bottom of that league table—that there is a view that religious persecution is wrong, but that some forms of it are more wrong than others. The persecution of Christians often comes out at the wrong end of that equation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to be crystal clear with the regimes that are persecuting Christians that we believe that it is anathema to what any Government should be doing?

[David Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome. I agree that any human rights violation should be treated the same, no matter what religion or belief someone has. I will come on to the broader connection between rights.

There is no country in the world that is a perfectly free society on the one hand, but just happens to persecute Christians on the other. That makes the persecution of Christians, and of freedom of religion or belief more generally, an acid test that reveals the true colours of many regimes that would rather portray themselves as orderly and harmless. Not being allowed to gather for worship means that there is no freedom of peaceful assembly. Not being allowed to evangelise or convert means that there is no freedom of conscience, speech or expression. Being imprisoned for faith means that there is no right to liberty. Without those freedoms, there is no democracy.

When Christians are thrown in prison, they are likely to share cells with Alawites, Uyghurs, Ahmadiyya and other individuals who are not tolerated because of what they do or do not believe. As our hearts break for Christians who are imprisoned, so they break for the many others who are abandoned because of what they believe. FORB is often seen as a canary in the coalmine for freedoms, but the analogy is imperfect because it suggests that the canary does not matter. FORB is better described as the lone nightwatchman who is found bleeding and unconscious outside as the night grows darker and freedom slips away.

The suffering can overwhelm us, but my hope is that the United Kingdom is uniquely well placed to act. Our country has been on a long journey from persecution to pluralism. That gives us a legitimacy with which to challenge other nations and encourage them to do better. We believe something radical, which is that while religious freedom would certainly be good for those who are being persecuted, it would also bless those who are doing the persecuting, by unlocking new opportunities and freedoms for their nations to flourish. I am encouraged that the Foreign Office is serious about keeping human rights as a cornerstone of our foreign policy. I commit to playing my part as the special envoy, pressing the Government as we seek to navigate this new world.

In my constituency of North Northumberland, we share the common-sense values of freedom of speech, fair play and respect for our fellow man. Those values were hard-won over centuries of debate and sometimes conflict. We now have the opportunity to lead the world in avoiding the mistakes we made, and to end the persecution of Christians wherever we see it. Where we see Christian persecution, we know that those of other faiths and beliefs will be suffering too. It is my expectation that this Government will step bravely into the breach to defend them so that, in the words of Jesus quoting the prophet Isaiah, we can

“proclaim good news to the poor, freedom for the captives and recovery of sight for the blind, and set the oppressed free”.

Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians

David Smith Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I have spoken already about the importance of the free press, safe travel for journalists and, indeed, parliamentary delegations.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his strong statement in defence of parliamentary democracy. Does he agree that transparency and accessibility are key to parliamentary democracy, and that obstructing the visit of two elected representatives of an allied nation can only raise troubling questions about the current health of Israeli democracy?

[Mr Falconer]

As I have said, one of the appealing elements of Israeli democracy is its free press and vibrant debate, and I know that many Members of this House have benefited from vibrant exchanges with their counterparts in Israel, as they have said already. I regret that that has not been the case this weekend.

Syria

David Smith Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

As has been said, clearly there have been malign third-party actors in Syria for some time. Russia and Iran have played a deeply malign role in Syria in all the years of the Assad regime, and we are glad that their influence is reduced. We will do all that we can to ensure that Syrians can stand on their own two feet without third-party influence, and that there is a stable and inclusive Government to take the next steps for Syria. That is a challenge for all the reasons that we have discussed.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

Given the horrifying events in Syria over the weekend, does my hon. Friend agree that the time for warm words from the Syrian Government on protecting minorities has passed, and that actions to safeguard religious minorities such as Alawites and Christians are required? If so, what more can the United Kingdom do to prompt those actions?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is right that actions, not words, must be the yardstick by which we judge the interim authorities, including the interim President. Following the violence, they have made some important commitments about holding the perpetrators to justice, being clear that this is not state-ordered. We need now to see the consequences of those words in those coastal communities in Syria. We will be watching very carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his long-held commitment on these issues. Soft power is an issue of the most vital importance, particularly in this contested world. I am very pleased to confirm, as the Foreign Secretary already has, that we are establishing a soft power council in the coming days. That is an important initiative and the British Council will be an important part of that work. In relation to country offices, the British Council retains a significant physical presence in more than 100 countries, which is welcome, and has a growing presence online, which is to be encouraged.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

11. What diplomatic steps his Department is taking to support the rights of religious minorities in Syria.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

I welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend as the new UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief.

As part of our intensive diplomatic engagement with international partners, and indeed with the interim Syrian authorities, we have consistently advocated for an inclusive political transition and underlined the importance of protecting the rights of religious and ethnic minorities.

[David Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me and for his commitment and that of the Department to work with the nascent Syrian Government as they seek to protect and respect religious minorities. However, I am sure that he is aware that over Christmas there were attacks by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham fighters on the Christian-majority town of Maaloula, and some reports of attacks on Alawite communities. What more can he and his Department do to work with the Syrian Government as they seek to build a society in which all religious communities can take part without fear of religious persecution?

[Mr Falconer]

As the House would expect, we follow reports of such incidents in Syria very closely. I was discussing some of those incidents with members of Syrian civil society just last night, and the Foreign Secretary has raised those questions directly with the interim Foreign Minister of the Syrian authorities. We will continue to call for all parties in Syria, in this moment of transition, to do the utmost to respect the rights of all religious minorities across the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in the middle east.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

9. What steps he is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in the middle east.

[The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)]

The humanitarian situation in Gaza is catastrophic. The UK’s recent vote for the UN Security Council resolution on Gaza has already been mentioned. It called for a huge scale-up in aid across Gaza. We need that aid access, and restrictions on aid are unacceptable.

[Anneliese Dodds]

We have heard a number of deeply concerning reports about developments in Gaza. I know that has also been the case for the Select Committee, as my hon. Friend mentioned. The UK Government’s position could not be clearer: international law, including international humanitarian law, must be held to, and that covers in particular the operations of healthcare workers. We pay tribute to them operating in such difficult circumstances.

[David Smith]

As we have been hearing, the situation in Gaza—especially northern Gaza—is dire, with the UN anticipating that this year up to 60,000 children under the age of five could be facing acute malnutrition. At the same time, the trucks entering Gaza have reduced by 63% since October 2023. I welcome the leading role that the Government are taking in providing vital humanitarian aid for Gaza, but does the Minister agree that the ongoing Israeli restrictions on the flow of essential aid are completely unacceptable and should be lifted immediately?