Nigeria: Freedom of Religion or Belief

David Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to lead this debate on Government support for freedom of religion or belief in Nigeria; I hope that we have some good debate. Recent events have thrown a spotlight on Nigeria in general, and on freedom of religion or belief in particular, so I hope that this debate can strengthen that spotlight.

One fact should make the scale of the challenge clear: more Christians are killed each year in Nigeria for being Christians than in all other countries combined. That is one reason why Nigeria is one of 10 focus countries in the first Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office freedom of religion or belief strategy, which I was pleased to launch last year. I declare an interest: I am the UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, or FORB, as I will refer to it from now on. I am committed to that strategy and to seeing Nigeria’s FORB improve in the coming years.

Fifteen years ago, I spent some time in Nigeria, and it was clear even then that persecution was a serious problem. I remember sitting in a hotel room in a very nice hotel in Abuja and hearing directly from a man whose wife had been brutally murdered by a mob in northern Nigeria—I am sad to say, burned to death—purely because she was a Christian. Let me reiterate: that was 15 years ago.

The FORB crisis in Nigeria is persistent and entrenched, with violence in the north and the middle belt a way of life for Christians, Hausa Muslims, those of traditional belief systems, humanists and others. Meanwhile, some federal state legal systems have been manipulated by some politicians and other public officials in order to impose so-called blasphemy and apostasy offences, despite section 38 of the Nigerian federal constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion and of conscience.

Nigeria’s FORB crisis is partly about violence, but it is also about legal suppression of freedoms at the state level, and it is a multi-faith crisis. While the majority of those affected are Christian, all FORB advocates know that persecution of one group invites persecution of others. Moderate Muslims, atheists, humanists and practitioners of traditional religions are all suffering in Nigeria for what they believe.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. The Government have made an excellent choice of him as their envoy, and God has chosen him for that position, which is more important than anything. Is he aware of the findings of the Global Christian Relief red list 2026, which identifies the top five persecutors of Christians worldwide? One of them is Nigeria. The Minister is an honourable man who addresses our issues. Does he agree that the UK Government must use their diplomatic engagement, development assistance and security co-operation to press for improved civilian protection, accountability for perpetrators and the defence of freedom of religion or belief for all Nigerians, whatever their faith may be?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Smith]

I thank the hon. Member. I know that he is concerned about this issue and has spent a lot of his time in this place addressing it. I am aware of that list. I am pleased to be speaking speak at the Open Doors world watch list launch tomorrow—I understand that Nigeria is also high on that list.

What does this have to do with us in this place? First, the Government are committed to a values-based foreign policy. Our consciences will not let us ignore the suffering of anyone denied dignity, agency and freedom. When people ask, “Why do you care about something like this in Nigeria?” our response is, “How could we not?” I am pleased to support the Government, which have moved to address suffering as far and wide as possible.

Secondly, Nigeria’s business is becoming everyone’s business. The old adage is: “When Nigeria sneezes, Africa catches a cold.” Nigeria is booming, with a population of 240 million that will keep growing for years to come. In the UK, we have 270,000 Nigerian-born residents, who make a dynamic contribution to our economy, society and country. A flourishing Nigeria, built on the common good, pluralism and universal freedoms, will be a blessing to the world, to Africa and to the UK.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I, too, think it is a very good thing that the hon. Gentleman has taken this role. He mentions the impact of this issue around the world. He is absolutely right to say that what is going in Nigeria is the worst example, but it represents a pattern of Islamist persecution of Christians. It is not just a series of individual atrocities; there is a global pattern of Islamist persecution of Christians. It is right that we in this House acknowledge that. Does he agree?

[David Smith]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I would certainly say that there are patterns around the world, and we must consider them honestly and address them. It is true that, as in Nigeria, freedom of religion or belief affects everyone, but we must be honest and straightforward when a particular community is affected more than others, and I will say a little more about that in my speech.

I have mentioned the UK’s Nigerian connections. A flourishing Nigeria, built on the common good is good for us all, but that is sadly some way off. Many of us here will have a rough idea of the situation—I see many colleagues in the Chamber who care passionately about freedom of religion or belief around the world, including in Nigeria. In the last six weeks alone, 13 people have been kidnapped from a church in Kogi state, in what the BBC called

“the second such attack in as many weeks”,

and a bomb was set off in a mosque in Borno state, sadly killing at least five worshippers.

Those are just the latest in a long line of attacks, violence and atrocities. That is why, on Christmas day last year, the American Government launched strikes on the Lakurawa militants in Sokoto state, in the far north-west of Nigeria, who are affiliated with Islamic State. Those strikes raised the profile of the uncertainty, fear and insecurity that many Nigerians live with daily. Between 2011 and 2025, at least 45,000 Christians in Nigeria were killed for faith-related reasons.

[Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent work as the FORB envoy and the extraordinary effort he is putting into the role. In a world in which geopolitics is becoming increasingly transactional—African Governments are increasingly focused on growth rather than on civil and political rights—and intolerance and bigotry are more widespread than ever, does he agree that it is vital that British foreign policy makes space for those without a voice, such as Christians in Nigeria, and that, however hard that is, we should redouble our efforts to do so?

[David Smith]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution, and especially for his role in the Bishop of Truro’s report, which led to my position and ultimately played a huge part in putting freedom of religion or belief at the centre of our foreign policy. I am certainly advocating for that in my role, and I know that the Government take it seriously. There is a false dichotomy in whether to advance freedoms or build economic relationships; we should have a holistic relationship with all partner countries around the world.

Moderate Muslims are also targeted by the extremists, who we need to call out. Religion is clearly key, but persecution is not necessarily evenly spread in every situation and in every country, and that is true of Nigeria. In Kaduna state, for example—after controlling for population—Christians were 15.8 times more likely to be abducted than Muslims, so there is a particular issue there. The situation continues to deteriorate. It is therefore reasonable to ask questions of the Nigerian military about their security response. In June last year, 258 people were killed in Yelwata, in Benue state. The nearest military base was just 20 miles away, but it took four hours for anyone to respond.

In the face of all this, it is perhaps unsurprising that the United States again announced in late October on social media that it would designate Nigeria a country of particular concern. As the Middle Belt Times in Nigeria put it,

“The message is unmistakable: Nigeria’s government is capable of fighting terrorism when sufficiently motivated. The capacity exists. The resources are available. What has been missing is political will.”

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Given that reliable sources estimate that tens of thousands of Christians have been killed in Nigeria since 2009, largely in the north and middle belt, placing the country at the epicentre of global persecution of the Christian Church, does the hon. Member agree that every diplomatic and political lever available to His Majesty’s Government must now be used to help end this violence and secure freedom of religion or belief for all?

[David Smith]

As I said in answer to the previous intervention, I do agree that it is very important for us not to have segmented or siloed relationships with other countries; we need to treat our relationships holistically. I look forward to the Minister’s response, because I know the Government are doing a lot—they regularly raise cases of freedom of religion or belief with counterparts in foreign Governments. My view is that we need to have a holistic relationship with other countries, and that includes freedom of religion or belief.

Let me quickly move to the issue of legal suppression of freedoms. Freedom House reports that in Nigeria,

“State and local governments have been known to endorse de facto official religions in their territory, placing limits on other religious activity.”

So-called apostasy and blasphemy laws have spread into Nigeria’s social and legal landscape, often led by regional or local Governments. Twelve northern states have enacted the sharia penal code, which Christian Solidarity Worldwide reports is effectively creating a “state religion”, in violation of Nigeria’s constitution.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing attention to the persecution of people of different faiths and beliefs, and particularly the heinous murders of thousands of people. He knows about the case of Mubarak Bala, who was jailed for a Facebook post that was deemed to be blasphemous. After he left Islam, he was sent to a psychiatric hospital, forced to leave his home and state and arrested. He calls on the UK and western Governments to repeal their own blasphemy laws. He has explained that when he was arrested, he was told, “Even the British have blasphemy laws.” Today, blasphemy and blasphemous libel is a criminal offence under common law in Northern Ireland. It is not used in Northern Ireland; it is a dead letter law. However, other countries that do use their blasphemy laws in extreme ways often point to these dead letter laws in other countries to justify their own behaviour. Does my hon. Friend agree that no country should have blasphemy laws, whether directly or by the back door?

[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.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[David Smith]

I will make a little progress, as I want to ensure that the Minister has time to respond.

The Government are doing some great things that I get to see and making a great deal of progress. We will hear from the Minister, but in my estimation the Government are supporting security work in Nigeria, working closely with the Nigerian Government, including on the SPRiNG—Strengthening Peace and Resilience in Nigeria—programme, which I hope we will hear more about, and building a sense of communal interfaith relationship and peace building—something I did in the past in a different context. That is really important, and I would love to hear more from the Minister about what that could look like if we grow it more.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Let me just remind the House of Matthew 5:10:

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

We must all bear that in our minds tonight. The question I would ask is this: how many more burned churches and murdered worshippers do we have to see before concrete action is taken? The hon. Member is doing an amazing job in this area—well done on that—but we need more concrete action. UK aid should be conditional on demonstrable action to protect religious freedom—surely that is a question for the Minister tonight.

[David Smith]

Again, I agree that we should have holistic relationships with all our partners; there should not be a hierarchy of importance when it comes to an economic trade deal versus pursuing our values as a country on things like freedoms. I am sure we will hear more from the Minister on that.

I mentioned what is happening on law and politics. In a way, that is almost a more worrying issue, because it creates a context in which it becomes acceptable to persecute. As long as ethno-religious fiefdoms are maintained, contrary to the promises of the Nigerian constitution, widespread reconciliation may be out of reach. The Government are clear in their opposition to the spread of blasphemy and apostasy laws, and I support that. In our complex and committed relationship with Nigeria, Britain has a range of tools at our disposal to support change in the direction of freedom of religion or belief, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the excellent work that the Government are doing, to which I remain committed.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Smith]

I will take one last intervention.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It might be helpful to explain that interventions are not allowed from the Opposition Front Bench, so the hon. Member will not take the intervention.

[David Smith]

Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood).

In conclusion, Nigeria is rich with potential and possibility, but in my view violent and legal suppression of FORB is undermining the country’s future. A plural Nigeria, rooted in the common good, in which 250 million people have genuine freedom to reason, question and believe is a blessing to Nigeria itself, to Africa and to the world. A flourishing Nigeria is good for Britain and a challenge to the autocrats of west Africa in declaring that freedom is, in the end, worth it.

Conversely, every Christian kidnapped, every mosque bombed and every atheist imprisoned risks the continuation of the cycle of ethno-religious conflict, and a diminishing of all that Nigeria can be. No one wants that and I am pleased that the UK Government are serious about freedom of religion or belief in Nigeria. I am committed to working with the Government in every way possible to support a better way forward. This issue needed attention years ago and I am glad that it now has that attention.

International Human Rights Day 2025

David Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

I will call the Front Benchers at 5.33 pm.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I am delighted to be speaking in this debate about International Human Rights Day and I congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) on securing it. I declare an interest as the UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. It will come as no surprise that I will focus on reminding us all that our history in this country places freedom, including religious freedom, at the heart of who we are as a nation and therefore at the heart of what we seek to achieve in the world around us.

Our country took many centuries to reach the point that we are at now. Thousands of British people have died over the centuries, because they worshipped in the wrong way or did not worship at all. In fact, our country’s relationship with religious freedom is in essence our history. I challenge us all to put a finger down on any part of British history at random and not to see that what is there is linked to religious freedom in some way, for better or for worse. Slowly, however, we developed a better way forward. As our country has become more tolerant, diverse and peaceful, we have moved from strength to strength. Who we are as a nation is wrapped up in the religious freedoms that have evolved into the superb protections that we now call human rights.

In one area, however, we seriously lag behind and that, ironically, is sometimes in our ignorance of the importance of religious freedom in this country and especially around the world, which is my responsibility. Our country is covered with churches from all over the world, yet sometimes we could be forgiven for thinking that religion is a private or unimportant matter. The rest of the world looks at us and thinks, “That’s crazy”, because everywhere else, religion is a major factor in people’s lives.

The world’s largest atheistic state, China, takes religion incredibly seriously. Religion is the main threat to the Chinese Communist party, so the Chinese authorities are busy stomping out Buddhism and the freedom of Buddhists, persecuting Falun Gong sects and shutting down churches. That is why, in July this year, I was pleased to speak at the Human Rights Council in Geneva to challenge the Chinese Communist party on its attempt to interfere with the succession of the next Dalai Lama. The world’s most heavily nuclear-armed state, Russia, takes religion seriously, too, and Russian identity is built on the belief that it is the home of the faithful Church. The world’s richest country, the United States, takes religion incredibly seriously and has a whole office for international religious freedom in its State Department. That is because being denied freedom to believe denies our humanity, and it heralds the coming of darkness.

I am proud of the UK’s record of championing FORB through being an early supporter of the universal declaration of human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights, because we have learned the importance of freedom of religion or belief. It is central to who we are, and we cannot separate it from British values. I am proud to be the MP for North Northumberland, which is home to Holy Island, where historically Vikings attacked British Christians. Over the centuries, however, Northumberland has become a place where people are free to believe what they want to believe. It is tolerant and everyone has the right to believe and confess how they wish. That is my vision for British foreign policy. We must remember that freedom of religion or belief is central to our foreign policy and having a values-led and freedom-focused foreign policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the grave nature of this crisis and the seriousness of the violence taking place in El Fasher. I agree that we need to put on every possible pressure through both the United Nations and directly through the Quad. We need urgent action to get a ceasefire—the humanitarian truce called for by the Quad—as well as humanitarian aid and the crucial protection of civilians in place. He will know that the UK doubled aid for Sudan and has continued to protect that, but the aid is unable to get through as long as this terrible fighting is taking place.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

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

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend that getting civilian pathways out of the city to safety are urgently needed. We are urging for a ceasefire to take place. We need all sides to pull back from this escalating and incredibly dangerous violence. We are seeing the scale of atrocities at risk of taking place, but the most immediate and urgent thing is to get a safe way out of the city for civilians.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I set out the detail of the sanctions to which my hon. Friend refers, and the Foreign Secretary has announced a review of some of the elements of our bilateral co-operation with Israel, including a number of steps in relation to free trade agreements and so on.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend asks a vital question, which I raised directly with the Syrian Minister of Justice and the Syrian Foreign Minister last week. The violence—in coastal regions, targeting Alawites, and in Suwayda in the south, targeting Druze and others—was deeply concerning. The Syrians have conducted an investigation relatively independently in relation to the violence at the coast. I called on them, as the Foreign Secretary has done before, to do everything they can to ensure that minorities in the new Syria feel safe and protected by the Syrian Government.

Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy

David Smith Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[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—]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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.