Defence
Debate between David Smith and Dave Doogan(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dave Doogan
I will make some progress.
A key problem for the current Government is that when they took over in 2024, they set great store by their strategic defence review. They said that they were going to fix defence from the ground up, and that it would all be in the strategic defence review, but when the strategic defence review was published it contained more questions than answers, principal among which was the defence investment plan. That was going to come in the summer. Then it was the autumn and then it was the winter and now it is the spring, and we do not even know whether we will get it in the following summer. It is critical for businesses to plan on this basis. I know that the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) takes a dim view of business and its role in defence, and takes a dim view of defence manufacturers. I respect his position, but I deeply disagree with him. We cannot honour our service personnel in uniform and then besmirch the manufacturers that equip them to do the job of defending us that we require them to do.
Similarly, the Government must come clean on the defence investment plan. It is simply not tenable. The Minister was clear with us in saying that Defence was very clear about what we required from the defence investment plan. That, alarmingly, tells us what the problem with the defence investment plan is, and it is the Treasury. Some of us have the privilege of speaking on defence and on the economy, and the fact that the current Chancellor of the Exchequer is the arbiter of how our nation, or rather this state, will be defended in the future is deeply concerning given her competence in generic fiscal matters, let alone issues to do with defence.
David Smith
There are many things in the hon. Gentleman’s speech that I agree with, but as someone who grew up on the Clyde, does he welcomes the naval shipbuilding on the Clyde and the sales to Norway. Those who live in Scotland—I grew up 15 miles as the crow flies from Faslane—are also protected by the nuclear deterrent.
Dave Doogan
We will disagree on that last point, but I am very happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman on the benefit of complex warship manufacturing in Scotland. It would be nice if it was occasionally framed as something other than a benevolent gesture from Westminster towards Scotland, as opposed to what it actually is: the United Kingdom benefiting from the skills and engineering expertise that have been present in Scotland for an awful long time. [Interruption.] I would not go that far.
That leads me to an intervention that was made on the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who declared that an independent Scotland would be completely defenceless and penniless. Classic Unionism! It totally ignores the fact that, at current rates, hard-working taxpayers in Scotland contribute £5 billion every single year to the defence of the United Kingdom. That has been airbrushed from reality.
Persecution of Christians
Debate between David Smith and Dave Doogan(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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”.