International Day of Democracy

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this important debate. I also put on record my disappointment that there is only one Conservative, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), present, although I look forward to his views because I respect his opinions.

To keep our bodies healthy, we take care of ourselves. We eat the right food, we take exercise and we avoid unnecessary dangers. We maintain our homes and our roads, and our farmers nurture the soil and tend the crops. I will argue that this applies to democracy, too.

Democracy is a living process. Without nourishment it will decline in efficacy, and it will decay. The International Day of Democracy is an important reminder to us all, at home and abroad, that democracy is not a given. There is no inexorable, divinely ordained path towards it. It is a precious, fragile, vulnerable thing, and it needs nurturing and protecting by every one of us and by every organisation and institution of our country.

On the International Day of Democracy, and because I am an ardent internationalist, I heed the words of the UN Secretary-General, who said that he admires,

“the courage of people everywhere who are shaping their societies through dialogue, participation and trust. At a time when democracy and the rule of law are under assault from disinformation, division and shrinking civic space”.

Democracy is about respecting the political process. It is about respecting the rules, and acknowledging that it is the rules that protect democracy from the forces that would undermine it from within.

At a fundamental level, democracy requires us all to accept that we both should and will resolve our differences through respectful debate, free and fair elections, and peaceful and law-abiding protest if necessary, and never, ever—under any circumstances—through violence. Violence has no place in a democratic system. Let us not kid ourselves, and let us not allow Orwellian doublethink to drag us into a post-truth reality peddled increasingly by the powerful on social media. Britain is not a crime-ridden dystopia teetering on the edge of anarchy, as some would have us believe. In fact, violent crime in London has dropped by 13%.

Britain is not a nation that suppresses free speech or free assembly, as Saturday’s march so obviously indicates. We are not a country whose elites prevent new parties from forming to represent the people—just ask the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). Words are at their most potent when used in political debate, and those who hold positions of influence must be more careful than most in how they wield them.

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

I am interested by my hon. Friend’s reference to Orwellian thought. Did he notice that on Saturday, Elon Musk was wearing a T-shirt that said, “What would Orwell think?”, and does he agree that anyone with a passing knowledge of George Orwell’s work knows exactly what George Orwell would think of Elon Musk and his actions over the weekend?

[John Slinger]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is a matter of opinion, and Mr Musk is entirely entitled to express his opinion about Orwell in any way he sees fit, although my opinion is that Orwell would be turning in his grave about that speech and many other things in our society. Orwell also spoke about the dangers of unbridled nationalism versus patriotism, which is a very positive force in our world and belongs to all of us, not to one group.

As I was saying, those who hold positions of influence must be more careful than other people in how they wield words, because words inspire real action that is both constructive and destructive. That is why I immediately condemned the appalling assassination of Charlie Kirk and offered my condolences to his family. There can be no double standards when it comes to rejecting violence. How stark the contrast is with Elon Musk telling the crowd on Saturday:

“The left is the party of murder.”

I have challenged Mr Musk’s foreign interference in our sovereign democracy, and his shameful framing of the debate through the lens of imminent violence. I have challenged this on my social media channels, and I am doing it today. I encourage all who value democracy to do so similarly.

Democracy implores us to regard our political opponents as just that: opponents, not enemies. We must not demonise, dehumanise or delegitimise our opponents. To do so is to build a road, whether wilfully or not, into the abyss. I have said publicly that 99.999% of politicians in this place and beyond are motivated by a desire to improve their community and, by extension, their country. If we imply otherwise and question their motivation, we are implying to our supporters that we do not regard our opponents or their views, or the views of their supporters, as legitimate.

It is unfortunate that GCSE and A-level politics 101 needs to be rehearsed here today, but frankly, at this moment in time, it does. Democracy requires the losing candidate and party, and their supporters, to accept the outcome of the election and, I would argue, to show respect to the winners by congratulating them and wishing them well, as we do in this country. Democracy also requires that the victorious candidate or candidates—the winners—show magnanimity towards those they defeated and those who supported them. That means that, in the immediate aftermath of an election, there can be a peaceful transfer of power that protects both winners and losers from retribution. 

Democracy is about respecting freedom of speech and a free media, but not weaponising and fetishising them to enable and amplify hatred through the incitement of violence and intimidation, and hon. Members across the House know all too much about that. A healthy democracy requires education so that citizens understand their rights and responsibilities, how the system works and the ways in which they can engage with it. It also means highlighting how the ordinary workings of democratic politics should, can and will improve people’s lives.

I end by returning to my argument about nourishment. Just as we take care of our bodies, a healthy democracy requires sustenance and care, a diet of trust and honesty, and regular exercise in civic participation and open debate. It must be protected from the cancer of political violence, and our population must be empowered to identify and challenge snake oil salesmen, wherever they lurk.

Failure to tend to our democracy will leave it malnourished and brittle, vulnerable to the corrosion of cynicism, apathy and all that flows from the unholy, abusive and manipulative dance between angry voters and powerful political actors who exploit grievance and stoke cynicism for their own gain, dressing it up as speaking for the people. That tactic is as old as the hills. It is as old as the Greek city states, and the history of nations is littered with disasters arising from the apathy of those who failed to protect democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Lady is right. That is fundamental to the society we live in and the way that we move forward. Freedom of speech is the very essence of democracy. Let me be clear that murder does not silence. As Erika Kirk stated:

“If you thought my husband’s mission was powerful before, you have no idea…what you have unleashed across this country and this world”.

Freedom of speech—that viewpoint—must be maintained.

Charlie’s message mattered to people, democracy matters to people and freedom of expression matters to people. This wonderful United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland matters to people. As the right hon. Lady said, having respect for other people’s opinions matters; it matters to me and everyone in this House. Personally speaking, I try to get on with everyone in this House. I might disagree with many things, and I probably disagree with many of the votes that are cast in this House, but that does not stop me being respectful to others. That is something we should all be trying to do.

[John Slinger]

As a relatively new Member of Parliament, I put it on the record that the hon. Gentleman epitomises that approach to politics. He has shown kindness to me, and I am sure that that is true of hon. Members right across the House. That is to be commended. We should all try to act in the way that he does.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is most kind. I serve my God and saviour. That is who I try to represent in this House, and that is my purpose for being here.

Political violence undermines democracy by disrupting peaceful political processes and intimidating others. On the International Day of Democracy, I celebrate those who uphold democracy. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster did so in her introduction, as did everyone else who spoke, and others will do the same. Unfortunately, we live in a world where those with violent vendettas seek to silence and take over, and we must never allow that to happen.

Democracy without morality is not possible. We must not forget those who stood up and fought for the principles of democracy. Charlie wanted to be remembered for his courage and his faith, which will never be forgotten. Those who share his values and feel silenced by these acts—and there are many—should not forget the importance of democracy and how many people before us fought for our rights in wars throughout history. I look to the Minister for his commitment to respect and freedom of expression, and for condemnation of these horrific acts of political violence. We must do more in this great nation, this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—always better together—to stand up against them.

Ambassador to the United States

John Slinger Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I wish to express my sympathy with all the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and put on record my respect for the family of Virginia Giuffre who spoke so movingly about her on the BBC at the weekend.

In listening to the debate here and in the media over recent days, I am struck by the similarities with the one that took place over many years concerning the appointment of Mr Andy Coulson as the director of communications in Downing Street, from the point of his resignation in 2011 to his conviction for phone hacking in 2014. It was an appointment that David Cameron consistently said he would not have made if he had known at the time the information that subsequently came to light. For that reason, the question was constantly asked in this House and beyond: why did the security processes Mr Coulson went through prior to his appointment not uncover his past involvement in phone hacking?

Some people pointed to the fact that, unlike previous occupants of his role, Mr Coulson had not gone through developed vetting until long after his appointment and, indeed, had to resign before completing that process. Yet when the issue was directly discussed at the Leveson inquiry, this was the exchange between Lord Justice Leveson and the former Cabinet Secretary, Lord O’Donnell, which is important to recall. Lord O’Donnell said of developed vetting:

“I think some people have different understandings of what DV’ing would reveal. It wouldn’t have gone into enormous detail about phone hacking, for example.”

Lord Justice Leveson replied:

“No. It’s concerned with whether you’re likely to be a risk.”

Lord O’Donnell then said:

“Whether you’re blackmailable, basically, yes”.

David Cameron relied on that exchange in this House after Andy Coulson’s conviction on 25 June 2014, when he said, first—and I think, correctly—that Coulson’s security clearance was a matter for the civil service and not for the Prime Minister, and secondly, that even if Coulson had been fully DV-ed, it would not have uncovered evidence of his involvement in phone hacking.

I mention this now not to reopen the issue over Andy Coulson’s security clearance, or that of Dominic Cummings for that matter, but simply to remind Opposition Members that it is not new to have these kind of questions raised around the vetting of senior appointees. It is certainly not an issue that is specific to this Government or the particular appointment of Lord Mandelson. They would do well to remember that before they get too high on their horse in today’s debate.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[John Slinger]

I will not—[Interruption.] I will give way.

[Monica Harding]

This really is not hard. Is it not enough to know that Lord Mandelson enjoyed the patronage of a convicted child sex offender by staying in his houses? Was that not enough to prevent his appointment as our most senior ambassador?

[John Slinger]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am setting out for the House very useful context within which this debate—[Interruption.] It is useful. Hon. Members can chunter from a sedentary position, but it is useful context.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[John Slinger]

I will not give way. I am coming to the conclusion of my remarks.

The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) spoke somewhat mockingly of the strange coincidences of politics, given the presentation of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill earlier today. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a man of integrity. He has shown that he believes in accountability and he acts on it. The Leader of the Opposition can reel off a list of Ministers who have been sacked, but that rather proves my point. Frankly, this is a welcome change and no matter how uncomfortable recent events have been, we are seeing, under this Prime Minister, that public officials, Ministers and yes, ambassadors are being held to higher standards than previously, and I welcome that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The speech that we have just heard was absolutely risible, frankly. I will just give the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) some advice: do not do the Whips Office’s dirty work for them—

[John Slinger]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course I will give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I would like to give him some advice: please do not patronise me.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I was just trying to give the hon. Gentleman some helpful advice, but there we are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Let us not shy away from what this is about: this is about a man who defended a convicted paedophile, which most people know would lead to any vetting process being failed because the person could be compromised when they have defended someone of those serious criminal offences. We know from what is in the public domain how much he was in hock to this convicted paedophile, and yet processes were overridden.

The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) raked up the past and, quite frankly, the resignation of a director of communications is very different from the withdrawal of an ambassador with top secret access. When the Conservatives were in government, we didn’t exactly not have our scandals and heartaches that we had to go through. I remind the House that what did for Boris Johnson as the Prime Minister was not the allegations thrown from the Labour side of the House; it was when he said to this House that he was not aware of any of the allegations made against Chris Pincher, and then it turned out that he had evidence that he was aware.

We know that this Prime Minister stood at that Dispatch Box last Wednesday and said he had not been made aware and did not have any documents, when we now know that his office had them. The question has to be answered: when did he know and how can it be shown that he did not know beforehand? The Conservatives moved against Boris Johnson as Prime Minister when it became apparent that he did know. I say to those Labour Back Benchers and those giving opinions in the press, “Do you have the courage now to move against a Prime Minister who has done exactly what the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson did in this country?” This party moved against him it became clear that that was not correct. It is said that “the buck stops here”. Well, the buck really needs to stop here.

[John Slinger]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to the previous Prime Minister as having conducted himself in certain ways. One of those ways was not actually having an independent ethics adviser for a period of time, whereas this Prime Minister has an independent ethics adviser and acts on their advice.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I took that intervention because I knew the hon. Gentleman would not be able to help himself. The reality is the Prime Minister made all this thing about, “I’ve appointed an ethics adviser, I’ve done this—” and yet, when asked the very straightforward question by the BBC, “Would you sack a Minister who has broken the ethics code?” he could not answer. He obfuscated, as he always does. This is smoke and mirrors, and this is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today.

It is not good enough to say, “We didn’t know.” I come back to the fact that people who were subject to a paedophile had to watch somebody who defended that paedophile get put in one of the highest offices in the world, carrying some of the greatest secrets of state—and yet this Prime Minister said, “That’s all fine; we’ll override it.”

I do not want to go beyond the six minutes I was allowed, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will just ask these questions of the Minister—some of them have been implied.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing this important debate. We must continue to strive to use every possible avenue for delivering supplies, so I welcome the Government’s co-operation with Jordan on airdrops. I want to put on record my praise for the efforts of Ministers and diplomats at a difficult time, but we must all do more.

The Palestinian people must not pay the price for the atrocities of Hamas, yet Israel’s then Defence Minister Yoav Gallant ordered a “complete siege” of Gaza with

“no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel”.

We all know that starvation as a method of warfare is illegal under international humanitarian law. The Gaza strip has now faced what is effectively a siege. The UN-backed panel, as hon. Members have said, has declared that there is now a famine in parts of Gaza. I know that the Government believe that the strip must be flooded with aid, not drip-fed through the piecemeal deliveries of the failing Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

According to the House of Commons Library, the UK considers Gaza’s status as occupied. As the occupying power, Israel is bound by the fourth Geneva convention and Hague conventions, which require it to ensure civilians’ access to food and medicine and to avoid collective punishment. The UK views Israel’s naval blockade as part of that. Blockades are governed by customary international law, including the San Remo manual, which requires legality, necessity and humanitarian access.

Given the humanitarian crisis, and Israel’s role in fomenting it, do the Government have a view on whether we and other countries have a legal right to provide aid by sea? Can the Minister outline whether the Government have looked at whether the Royal Navy could deploy ships off the coast of Gaza or a hospital ship? I am not singling out Israel; I am asking that we treat it by the standards, norms and law that all nations must adhere to, especially democracies. Those rules are fraying before our own eyes, and that is terrible, mainly for the Palestinians, but also—

Qatar: Israeli Strike

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, we are committed to Qatar’s security and defence—we have a close relationship with the Qataris on both, and we are of course in constant discussions with them about the importance of that collaboration. On his second point about a protective force—and here I will take advantage of the question asked by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), who was Secretary of State for International Development when I was posted in South Sudan with a chapter VII UN peacekeeping force, which at that time had the most far-reaching mandate to protect civilians—we in this Chamber cannot pretend that UN peacekeeping forces are able to impose peace where there is none. There must be a ceasefire negotiation. In Juba I saw, as did the world, the horrifying ethnic cleansing that followed the inability of the UN mission to protect people. We must have a ceasefire. It is easy to get distracted with other alternatives, but the truth is that only a ceasefire will protect civilians in Gaza.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Given that, under article 51 of the UN charter, any pre-emptive strike is normally regarded as justified only when a threat is imminent; that article 2(4) states that

“all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”;

and that article 51 states that

“measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council”,

does my hon. Friend agree that international law and the preservation and strengthening of the rules-based system is vital to the peoples of the region, the wider world, our ally Qatar and the UK? Will he make it clear to Israel that we expect it to obey international law?

[Mr Falconer]

We expect Israel, alongside all of our allies, and indeed every state, to abide by international law. My hon. Friend sets out the relevant tests of self-defence and imminence. As I have said, the UK is supporting a motion for an urgent session of the Security Council this afternoon on this question.

Middle East

John Slinger Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I do think it is important that the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding his strength of feeling, recognises that Israel is a complex place of many opinions. He will have found disputes, certainly from this Government but I think from many people in this Chamber, on the direction of travel that the Netanyahu Government have set themselves, and the extremists in that Government who have taken them on a certain path. I think that is an important qualification. We are doing all we can, but he will recognise that we do that with partners, seeking to exert leverage, and that is why we have made the decisions that we have most recently.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, now more than ever, the will of the international community must take precedence over the will of those who perpetuate conflict and deny a two-state solution? Of course that means Hamas, but also, sadly, the Israeli Government. Can he assure me that this Government are looking at previous times when the international community, with Britain at the forefront, has ended conflicts, despite difficulties, and built a fair and just peace, overcoming facts on the ground and restoring hope?

[Mr Lammy]

No conflicts are the same. That region has had numerous conflicts over the years. What we have seen over the past 23 months has been horrific. It is my job, as the country’s chief diplomat, to do everything I can, straining every sinew and working with colleagues, to bring the conflict to an end and keep my language diplomatic.

Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy

John Slinger Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, and I thank the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) for his personal story. I thank the Labour party and the Prime Minister in particular for appointing the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) to his position as special envoy, a role that Fiona Bruce played when she was in Parliament. The hon. Member knows this, because I said it to him on the day he was appointed: I believe wholeheartedly that our God has placed him in that position for a purpose, just as he did with Fiona Bruce.

I have some 74 churches in my constituency, of different denominations and with different religious affiliations. Every time we have a debate or a question in the Chamber on freedom of religion, I ensure that those 74 churches have a copy of Hansard to inform them, because they want to know what is happening. The same thing will happen after this debate. It is always an honour to rise in the House to speak not only about policy, but about principle. Today I rise to speak on a subject close to my heart and central to our shared humanity: the role of freedom of religion or belief in UK foreign policy.

It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in her place—not just because she is a good Minister, but because she gives us the answers. I very much look forward to what she will do. Yesterday, in the urgent question in the Chamber on Sudan, she was there to give encouragement to the Christians in Sudan who have been persecuted, massacred and butchered. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), in his place; I look forward to his contribution too.

The United Kingdom has long prided itself on being a champion of human rights. Yet at the heart of every proud tradition lies a truth we must never forget: freedom of religion or belief—FORB—is not a luxury; it is a foundational liberty. Therefore, it is core to our very beliefs, what we as a society should be trying to promote and what the Minister and the Government need to put in place. It is the right not just to worship freely, but to live without fear, coercion or discrimination on account of one’s faith or conscience. That right transcends borders, politics and creeds, and our foreign policy must reflect that. I welcome the stage that this is at and the direction that it is going. I believe that it can point us in the necessary direction. I declare an interest as the chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, through which I have had the opportunity on many occasions to see at first hand the consequences when that freedom is denied.

I see Mervyn Thomas in the Public Gallery. Mervyn and I went to Egypt around 2012 or 2013. We had the chance to meet President el-Sisi, who promised us, as Mervyn will recall, the pluralistic society that we hoped would come about in Egypt. Obviously, we took him at his word—it was very impressive to meet the President in his palace—but we had the chance to go back there a short time ago, and that pluralistic society that President el-Sisi promised for Egypt is now taking place.

In Cairo we had the opportunity to meet the bishop, as well as Father Abraham, Father Paul and Youssef Samir of the evangelical church, which is attended by 1,800 on a Sunday morning. When was the last time that anyone here was in a church with more than 200 people? I just pose that question. There are 600 children who attend that church in the middle of Cairo. It is a Muslim country, but it has a pluralistic society. Is that the work of President el-Sisi? Yes, partially, but it is also the work of God, and we have to recognise where that is all coming from.

People have opportunities that they did not have before. They are building a new church. President el-Sisi, who is a Muslim, opened a mosque in Cairo; he asked, “When are you opening a Protestant church?” I say that we have lots of negative stories across the world, but we have to remember that God is working across the world, and his work is declaring positive news.

From the persecution of Christians in Nigeria and Pakistan to the systematic repression of Uyghur Muslims in China, the silencing of Baha’i in Iran and the marginalisation of atheists and humanists across the globe, the landscape of belief is under threat. Where religious freedom is suppressed, other human rights quickly follow. That is why the United Kingdom must embed FORB as a guiding thread through its diplomatic and development work, not just in words but in practice.

Through our embassies, aid and global partnerships, we have taken meaningful steps in the right direction. The establishment of the role of special envoy for freedom of religion or belief was a crucial milestone, and the special envoy is doing a tremendous job. I know that there is more to come. In 2022, the International Ministerial Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief in London gathered leaders from all around the world to reaffirm their commitment to protecting this freedom.

As new threats emerge, either through authoritarian surveillance, digital repression or the misuse of anti-conversion laws, our response must be firm, proactive and principled. We must ensure that FORB is not siloed as a niche concern, but integrated across every foreign policy conversation, from trade negotiations to peace- building, education and humanitarian relief. The Bible reminds us in Zechariah 7:9-10:

“This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.’”

Every one of us in this place could learn a lot from that verse. That includes me, by the way; I am not excluding myself from that. All of us, including me, should consider that verse integral as we move forward. It calls us to protect freedom of religion and belief by standing up for the vulnerable and ensuring that justice and mercy guide our actions as a nation.

Let us speak boldly for those whose voices are silent. Let us be that voice for the voiceless. Let us partner with Governments, taking real steps to protect the right to choose our own beliefs and challenge those Governments that oppose that. I believe we need to understand that freedom of religion or belief is not optional; it is a crucial part of building lasting peace. It should inform our relationship with those nations in terms of reputation and trade deals.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I recently led a delegation as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq. We visited the Catholic archbishop of Erbil, Bashar Matti Warda, who told us about the safe haven that that region within Iraq offers for Christians and other religious communities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UK Government must do all that they can to strengthen places like that in difficult regions of the world as they try to foster freedom of religious belief and expression?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief we had an opportunity to be in Iraq when Daesh was active. We were in Erbil and worshipped in the Roman Catholic Church at that time, because we felt it was important to stand alongside our brothers and sisters wherever they may be in the world. It is good to know that things have now progressed in a positive way and that Daesh is out. We hope to go back to Iraq sometime in the near future. Whenever things settle down in the middle east might be a better time to do that.

I conclude with these comments for those with Christian faith, those with other faiths and those with no faith. In defending FORB we do not favour one faith over another. We defend the dignity of every individual—Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, atheist or otherwise —to believe, to change belief or to have no belief at all. Our foreign policy must not merely protect our interests, but must reflect our identity. That identity is rooted in liberty, justice and the unshakeable conviction that every person is created equal and worthy of respect. Let us stand firm in that conviction for the sake of those who suffer, and for the sake of the world we seek to build.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this debate. I was with him the day that his appointment was announced. It was after many weeks of us all wondering whether Downing Street would appoint an envoy. He kept it quiet until it was announced, but I was so pleased that it was my friend who was given that responsibility, because I cannot think of anybody better to take on that role.

I thank everyone who has spoken today. Every speech has moved me in some way. It is a testament to the way that freedom of religion or belief goes to the heart of our British values that we sit in cross-party consensus on this. And it is a testament to our nation that we can have this level of civility in our debate. I can look across to Opposition Members and see people I hold in high regard, notwithstanding our different views on various aspects of policy.

I join the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) in his tribute to Fiona Bruce in the role that she played. I had the privilege of working with Fiona when she organised the FORB ministerial conference in 2022. The fact that I was a Labour candidate at the time and she a Conservative MP never came into it, because we were both absolutely unified in a sense of purpose.

I had the blessing of being able to work briefly for about a year and a half on freedom of religion or belief. My background is in conflict prevention and human rights. Despite a decade in that space, when a friend asked me whether I would be willing to come and support Government relations around FORB, I thought I was being asked to work for a US business magazine because I had not actually heard that phrase before, which shows that we have some work to do. But I soon came to grips with the brief and came to develop a deep appreciation of the importance of freedom of religion or belief within human rights work and the work that we do around the world to prevent identity-based violence.

As I entered this new world, however, I did so with a critical eye. I will just mention a few things that I have noted as a call to all of us who care about FORB. One is that we need to look outwards and not inwards. We need to avoid a competition over which group is the most persecuted, and instead recognise that establishing the universal principles of FORB is the best way to secure freedoms and rights for everybody. Secondly, FORB does not give a right to impose one’s religion or beliefs on others. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) spoke so well about the importance of combating anti-blasphemy laws and the crucial right to be able to not believe in a deity.

Thirdly, those of us who do come from a background of faith need also to recognise that the price of the freedom to practise our religion is to do no harm and to take responsibility. I think we need to do more sometimes to reach out to the LGBT community and others who have been historically marginalised and excluded, and that includes internationally. In Uganda, near where I used to work, a community is suffering intense persecution. It is in the name, sadly, of the God I worship that that persecution is being meted out. People from Afghanistan regularly reach out to me and tell me that they are living in a state of hiding akin to Anne Frank and her family, for fear of being exposed.

We need to emphasise the belief aspect of freedom of religion or belief, which includes humanism—the right not to believe. The right to share one’s faith must also entail the right to criticise that faith. I am a Latter-day Saint. I see that “The Book of Mormon” musical is on in the west end all the time. I am comfortable with that. I absolutely defend the right for people to criticise me or my faith, but there is a difference between criticising theological beliefs and stereotyping, or ascribing negative traits without evidence to the holders of those beliefs. Likewise, there is a difference between mocking a religion in its abstract or organised form and discriminating against an individual who identifies with it.

I want to speak to the strategy for a moment. This is a small point, but I think it is a really consequential one. We tend to think about our commitment to freedom of religion or belief in terms of negative rights—of protecting people against interference and infringements of their freedoms of conscience, speech or assembly—but I would suggest that for the UK truly to lead the world with our values, we need to assume our positive duty to enable those who are marginalised and persecuted to live in accordance with their faith and belief. We recognise that in our humanitarian response to war and disaster. We recognise the need for food, water, medicine and shelter, but could we also recognise the need for dignity, and the emotional and psychological need to live one’s faith? Could we not only allow people to live their religions, but actively assist them to do so?

I have seen great examples of that around the world, from the Muslim and Christian youth in the Central African Republic who work together to rebuild each other’s mosques and churches, to the AMAR Foundation in Iraq helping Yazidi refugees, particularly women and girls, find healing and empowerment through traditional religious clothing that they had to leave behind in their flight from ISIS.

[John Slinger]

rose—

[Sam Rushworth]

Apologies—I have almost finished. Members of my own church, the Latter-day Saints here in London, give out copies of the Quran to refugees. As we do this, let Britain continue to be a beacon for religious freedom around the world in an active sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, not least as you have another role as trade envoy to New Zealand. I was very pleased to visit Christchurch, New Zealand, some years ago to see its magnificent cathedral. I then went again a few years later and saw that it had been destroyed. I pay tribute to our New Zealander friends because theirs is a Christian country, they uphold Christian values and they are part of our Commonwealth family.

Many New Zealand MP friends of mine would be fascinated by, and very supportive of, this wonderful and important debate. I commend the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing it and, more importantly, for continuing the work of our friend and former colleague Fiona Bruce, who was Member of Parliament for Congleton until last year. We can all agree that the hon. Gentleman is doing a splendid job as the special envoy on freedom of religion or belief, upholding the values shared by Members on both sides of the House. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for paying tribute to Fiona; she is a lovely person and we miss her. But we are delighted that the work she started is being continued by the hon. Member for North Northumberland.

The British nation has always stood resolutely for liberty, not just here at home but around the world. We are one of the few nations that have appointed a special envoy of this nature, and that is no small thing. But with that leadership comes immense responsibility. When millions across the globe face violence, imprisonment and discrimination simply because of what they believe, we cannot look the other way or pass by on the other side. We have a moral obligation to defend the fundamental freedoms that have shaped our history in these islands and defined our values. We must never retreat from upholding what is right. Indeed, it is precisely because we always stand firm in defence of such principles that the United Kingdom commands such deep respect around the world. Liberty generally, and freedom of religion or belief more broadly, must be at the heart of our foreign policy.

I commend all Members who spoke in this debate. I pay particular reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for highlighting the issue of what is happening in Taybeh, and how horrific the actions taken there are. It is very upsetting to hear, and I hope that our friends in Israel will be listening to this debate. As someone who is, and has always been, pro-Israel, I am very upset to hear what is going on. My heart goes out to the members of St George’s church, the Christian community and all those being persecuted or losing their lives in that dreadful conflict.

At the start of his speech, the hon. Member for North Northumberland spoke about visiting the Soviet Union and seeing the persecution there. I remember that during my days in the Young Conservatives we supported freedom of religion in the Soviet Union; Bibles were being smuggled over there—a lot of work was going on in those days. Earlier this year, I visited Shkodër, in the north of Albania. I visited a prison where the most appalling torture had taken place under the vile Albanian communist regime. We all agree that the world must move on from those atrocities and not go back. Sadly, there are parts of the world where these things continue. We must stand together, unified against such things.

I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury for making a clear statement: he said that we should be bold and courageous in proclaiming our Christian faith. And so we should. The entirety of the foundations, traditions, customs and heritage of our country are based on the Christian faith. The cross is on the top of the crown—when the King wears the crown, there is a cross on the top. That means that all religions and denominations are equal, but there has to be an understanding that there is a Christian foundation to our society.

I say to the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) that I was honoured to travel to Iceland a few years ago with Lord Campbell-Savours, the hon. Member’s father. We had many discussions about all kinds of things. The hon. Member has a wonderful father, who serves in the other place, and I am delighted to see that he is continuing his father’s work and talking about Iceland, a country with which we have a huge amount in common. There are many dear friends in that country. I also thank the hon. Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for speaking in this significant debate.

We learned last week, and this has been articulated this afternoon, that the FCDO has now announced a five-point strategy on freedom of religion or belief. That is a welcome step, but as ever it is not about the plan—it is about delivery. What matters now is whether this Government are matching the words with actions.

The first point that has been articulated is that of upholding international standards. The UK has long had influence in international forums, as a member of the UN Security Council and given that our capital, London, is home to the Commonwealth Secretariat, but are we really using that influence to lead the charge on religious freedom to the full? Are we naming those who trample on religious rights? Are we truly standing up to regimes that ignore international law and persecute people of faith? Or are we hesitating when that might come at a diplomatic cost? Maybe the Minister can answer those questions later.

Secondly, on bilateral engagement, Ministers regularly tell us that they raise these issues behind closed doors. When will we see the results? What outcomes have been achieved from our talks with long-standing members of the Commonwealth, such as, for instance, Pakistan, where blasphemy laws continue to be abused with devastating effect; or Nigeria, where only last year, 218 Christians were slaughtered by Islamic fundamentalists in the middle belt? Have we made clear to those Governments that this simply cannot go on and that there will be consequences if it does?

And what about China? The persecution of Uyghur Muslims, Christians and Falun Gong practitioners has long been systematic, brutal and well-documented. Governments, past and present, talk of engagement, but what does that mean in practice? Given that His Majesty’s Government have gone back on their promise of a fully published China audit, will the Minister assure us all today that freedom of religion and belief will be front and centre in any negotiations with the Chinese Communist party? Or are we still willing to trade human rights for economic deals and the allure of a super-embassy on prime real estate in London? Is that really something we should be supporting?

The third strand of the FCDO’s policy strategy is building coalitions. In principle, of course I support that, but coalitions must be seen to be achieving things. Who are our partners? What practical steps have we taken with allies to defend freedom of religion and belief in the toughest regions, such as the Sahel, the middle east or central America? Have we formed joint initiatives or are we merely issuing polite statements?

[John Slinger]

A constituent of mine, Nicola, has raised concerns highlighted by the Open Doors charity about the case of Mehran Shamloui. He is a Christian who fled Iran to avoid being imprisoned for his faith and has apparently been detained after being deported back to Iran, and charged with propaganda against Islamic law and membership of groups opposing the state. He now faces an uncertain future. Does the hon. Member agree with me that cases relating to that particular country and regime must be a focus of our Government?

[Andrew Rosindell]

Of course; I could not possibly disagree. Now that point is on the record, I am sure the Minister will take note and take that case forward.

The fourth strand is about maintaining FORB across the FCDO. If done properly, that could be transformative. But, again, where is the detail? Are our ambassadors trained on FORB? Are they expected to report on it? Is religious freedom considered when we decide where aid goes or when arms are sold? Is FORB integrated in our dealings with Commonwealth partners, many of whom face significant challenges on these issues? Or is it still viewed as a specialist interest and a box simply to be ticked?

The final point is civil society. Those brave individuals on the ground are often the first line of defence for religious freedom. They speak out when Governments will not. They face threats, harassment and even death. How are we supporting them? Are we funding grassroots organisations? Are we giving them access to our embassies and high commissions, our diplomats and our protection, or are they being left to fend for themselves?

At the recent FCDO briefing on this subject, cases were presented regarding countries such as Nicaragua, Eritrea, Yemen and Afghanistan. The picture was bleak, with repressive laws, targeted killings and the crushing of dissent. This is seemingly part of a wider pattern. In Nicaragua, the Ortega regime is targeting the Catholic Church in a campaign of repression. In Eritrea, Christians are languishing in prison.

In Yemen, religious minorities are caught between war and persecution. In Syria and Iraq, ancient communities have been decimated. What exactly is the UK doing in each of those places? Where are the consequences for those who commit these crimes?

The Government recently announced the suspension of sanctions on the new Syrian Government. However, as recently as this week, we have witnessed the eruption of violence between the Druze minority and Islamists, with the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reporting dozens of deaths. In the light of those developments, was the suspension of sanctions on Syria premature? I think it was. If FORB is central to our foreign policy, was the suspension of sanctions on Syria an indication that religious freedom has been restored in Syria? Are we monitoring the dangers faced by religious and ethnic minorities such as the Druze, who have long sought to remain neutral in Syria’s civil conflict?

The sad truth is that freedom of religion and belief is deteriorating and violations are increasing. Perpetrators are becoming more brazen and the people who are suffering, be they Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Yazidis, Jewish people, Baha’is or others, too often have nowhere to turn. If the Government are prepared to back fine words with firm action, let us see it now. Will they publish regular updates on how the five-point strategy is being delivered? Will they bring transparent, accountable and measurable goals into the work published?

I believe that Britain has always stood for freedom. Let us not falter now. We have a voice through the previous Government’s creation of the special envoy position. We have the tools now; what we need is the resolve to use them. I urge the Minister to ensure that all our talk of freedom of religion and belief is not merely honeyed words, but a real statement of intent from His Majesty’s Government that we take this seriously and that those who violate the sacrosanct principles of religious freedom will suffer the consequences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this debate and for his dedicated work, both before he entered this place and now as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. The strong views shared across the House today show just how important this issue is to so many of us. I welcome the chance to respond to the points raised and to restate the Government’s commitment to defending freedom of religion or belief.

That commitment was reinforced just last week with the launch of the UK’s approach to FORB, which puts this work at the very heart of our foreign policy. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we are taking a more targeted approach under the FORB strategy, focusing on 10 countries, but not to the exclusion of engagement on FORB issues across the world; we will remain responsive to other situations. As today’s debate demonstrates, this is truly a global challenge.

Human rights, including the right to freedom of religion or belief, the rule of law and good governance, are the foundations of this Government’s mission. This is about not only doing what is right, but our national interest. We know that countries that uphold rights and the rule of law are more stable, prosperous and resilient. We also know that when freedom of religion or belief is under threat, the other rights are often at risk. That was poignantly demonstrated in the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (John Slinger) and for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who talked about the LGBTQ community, which is sometimes oppressed by religious communities, and Yazidi refugees in connection with the element of respect and dignity in the strategy.

I take on board the challenge around training—perhaps not for our staff, but for Members and Ministers. I often find that it is the Ministers who get trained by the officials, but I will make sure that there is training on both sides. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland will look at training needs across the network, in case there is anything we have missed.

From the Uyghurs in China, who were mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), and Ukrainians under Russian occupation to recent attacks on worshippers in Syria and the daily persecution of minority communities in Bangladesh, these are not isolated incidents. They are a call to action, and this Government will respond.

That is why Lord Collins, the Minister for human rights, recently wrote to all heads of mission underlining the importance of embedding our human rights priorities, including freedom of religion or belief, across the network. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, the strategy demands that we draw on the strength of our diplomatic network, so that freedom of religion or belief is genuinely embedded in the conversations that we are having anyway, working with human rights champions and grassroots networks, speaking up on the international stage, and of course landing our messages clearly in our bilateral engagements. In our bilateral work, often we speak out publicly, and more often we speak privately, and we will continue to do both.

We do not shy away from challenging countries that fall short of their obligations, but we also know that real progress comes through partnership, finding common ground and working together to deliver change. To take a few examples, freedom of religion or belief is a central part of our work in Pakistan. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), discussed this topic with Government Ministers and religious leaders during his visit in November.

In Nigeria, the drivers of intercommunal violence are complex, but I was relieved to hear of the release of Mubarak Bala, whose case my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) raised. That was the result of a long-running campaign by Humanity International and the all-party parliamentary humanist group, which the Government were pleased to get behind. These campaigns are often so much more powerful when they do not come from Governments, but when Governments get behind them.

In October, I personally pressed the Vietnamese Government to respect people’s rights to speak freely, to meet in groups and to practise their religion, just as they agreed to in their most recent United Nations human rights review. I followed up with Vice Foreign Minister Hang on 17 March, and I will keep working with the Vietnamese Government to make sure that these rights are protected. We are also in constant dialogue with the interim Government in Bangladesh, stressing the importance of upholding freedom of religion or belief and protecting all communities, even when they make up less than 5% of the population.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) spoke about Syria. We are deeply concerned about the recent violence in the south and welcome the announcement yesterday of a ceasefire. Perhaps the picture is changing. We have made it clear that the Government must ensure the protection of all civilians, including Druze, hold to account those responsible for violence and make progress towards an inclusive political transition. The Foreign Secretary visited earlier this month and underlined those priorities.

Meanwhile, we continue to stand firm on human rights in China, raising our concerns at the highest level and as part of the audit the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned. I was able to meet with groups, including Rahima Mahmut from the Xinjiang group, as part of the audit, so the words of people in the Xinjiang region who have personally suffered bled into the China audit.

The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) mentioned the awful situation in Taybeh in the west bank. His words echo those of the Bishop of Southwark, who has condemned the situation in Taybeh and the pure impunity following the attacks in the occupied Palestinian territories. We have also seen the Holy Family church in Gaza being struck. Earlier this week, our consul general visited Taybeh with church leaders and international partners to express solidarity with the local community following those awful attacks, which were so eloquently described by the Father of the House. We also reiterate our calls for the status quo arrangement at Jerusalem’s holy sites to be upheld, to ensure the safety and the security of Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount and all who worship there.

At the multilateral level, we believe that real progress comes from working together. That is why we are using our international role alongside a wide range of countries to promote tolerance and respect. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland joined the UK-led Human Rights Council side event on Tibetan Buddhism, leading the international community on this important question in Geneva. We need to listen to the testimonies of the Tibetan Buddhist community, so that our Government can show that we believe that choosing the Dalai Lama’s successor is a decision for Tibetan Buddhists alone.

We regularly take part in interactive dialogues with the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and other mandate holders. In June, we used the platform to call on the Taliban to reverse their inhumane restrictions on minorities, including the Hazara community, which of course particularly affect Hazara women. We also urged Eritrea to release people detained for political reasons or for their religion or belief. We often raise freedom of religion or belief concerns during the UN’s universal periodic review. In particular, we pressed the Iraqi Government—the hon. Members for Rugby and for Strangford spoke about—regarding the Kurdish and Christian communities, who are both under severe pressure in that part of the world.

[John Slinger]

I had the great privilege of visiting the holiest temple of the Yazidi people, Lalish, and was warmly welcomed by them. They have endured horrific atrocities at the hands of ISIS Daesh, including genocide and mass displacement. Does my hon. Friend agree that the work of the Kurdistan Regional Government and President Nechirvan Barzani—particularly through initiatives such as the office for rescuing the abducted, which has so far rescued 3,500 individuals—is to be commended? Can she see whether the Government can help in that endeavour?

[Catherine West]

I certainly will. My hon. Friend has now put that on record, so I am pleased that he was able to get that into this important debate. I am also pleased that we were able to lobby the Government of Laos to guarantee that everyone, including minorities, can exercise their rights without facing reprisals. We also work closely with the OSCE, which gives us a valuable platform to discuss freedom of religion or belief and related issues.

We are an active member of the Article 18 Alliance, on which my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland went into in much detail. Over the past year, the UK has proudly held the presidency of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and we led international efforts to promote Holocaust remembrance, tackle distortion, fight antisemitism, and ensure that future generations learn the lessons of the past.

I can announce today that the programme funding is safe—the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), asked about that. The John Bunyan fund, which targets funding through our posts, is safe from any reductions. I am excited to see how that will be spent, in consultation with the envoy for freedom of religion or belief. On the question of the important case in Iran raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, I am sure that the Minister, Lord Collins, will respond to him in detail.

I recognise the strength of feeling in this debate. It is a reminder of how deeply people care about the right to believe or not believe freely. That is why we are committed to working with others, and we will use every opportunity to stand up for freedom of religion or belief. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland will get me into big trouble if I do not.

Sudan

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his relentless work in this House on freedom of religion or belief. Of course, the region used to be so much more diverse, but the space for religious freedom has really narrowed. He is quite right to challenge that. With his permission, I will share his thoughts with our freedom of religion or belief champion, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), so that we can work together on this issue and shine a spotlight on the lack of freedom for Christian communities in particular, but also for other minority communities in the Darfur region.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I am sure all hon. Members will want to praise British diplomats for all they are doing on this difficult issue. The potential catastrophic loss of ever more civilian life—not merely in the armed conflict, but in the resulting humanitarian catastrophe—means that the conscience of the world must lead to action, first and foremost through diplomacy. Have the Government considered working with allies to ensure that all options remain on the table, given concepts like the responsibility to protect? Given that Sudan has previously seen a genocide in Darfur, does the Minister agree that we must ensure that the international community does not once again have to say, “If only we had acted more robustly,” or, “Never again”?

[Catherine West]

I thank my hon. Friend for his extensive work in civil society on these sorts of issues. The current position is for us to engage extensively through diplomatic means to encourage all parties to come to the table. We are very aware of the complexity of this particular conflict and the fact that it is not just two sides within the region, but a lot of other players. We are uniquely positioned with our role on the United Nations Security Council and with our other partners; for instance, we do a lot with the League of Arab States and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. We are using our diplomatic efforts double time at the moment, but I do hear what my hon. Friend says.

Actions of Iranian Regime: UK Response

John Slinger Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I know of the right hon. Gentleman’s long commitment to these issues. So many right hon. and hon. Members have had encounters with the Iranian diaspora and, indeed, more moderate Iranians. The Iranian people are not the enemy of the UK. There is a broad, cultured, moderate population there who would like to live a better life, and who see their families oppressed in the way the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) described. We must do everything we can to support them.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and his diplomats in the FCDO for their work and the emphasis on diplomacy. Does my hon. Friend agree with me about the importance of soft power in this situation, and that the BBC Persian service is doing excellent work in explaining news in a truthful way? Does he agree further that we ought to be extending a hand of friendship to the Iranian people at a very delicate and sensitive time in world politics?

[Mr Falconer]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend, on both the importance of diplomacy and the importance of BBC Persian, through which the UK makes an important contribution for Farsi speakers across the world. I have met many BBC Persian service journalists and they provide a vital service.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

John Slinger Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been very clear on this: the United States, our Five Eyes partners and India support this deal. Mauritius was one of the few countries not to join the belt and road initiative. It is very clear that the deal is in the interests of our security and that of our allies—otherwise, the United States would not have agreed to it in the first place.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Clearly, language such as “surrender” is inflammatory and inappropriate. Conservative Members of this House wax lyrical and make a song and dance about national security. Will my hon. Friend remind them that on their watch, our armed forces were hollowed out, with the Army reaching its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars, and spending never once reached 2.5%? Is it not true that Labour is the party of strong defence and strong national security?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is right. Whether it is in the ambitious agenda for national security and defence set out in the strategic defence review, in the unity and leadership we showed at the NATO summit last week, or in securing our crucial national security bases, including Diego Garcia, this Government are leading from the front when it comes to national security. Quite frankly, the Conservative party is showing some brass neck after hollowing out our armed forces, leaving this deal undone and so many other things. I simply do not understand it, Mr. Speaker.

BBC World Service Funding

John Slinger Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for securing the debate. He is not only an hon. Friend, but a running partner of mine.

On Tuesday, in Parliament, I had the pleasure of attending a BBC World Service panel, where we heard from the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on many things, such as how he regrets that the Government in which he served insisted that the World Service should largely be funded by the licence fee. The fee, paid exclusively by British residents, must now tenuously cover 75% of the cost of the World Service, a service designed almost entirely for an external audience, but which has huge public benefit to the British people, if not a huge British public consumption rate.

At the time we are debating this subject, Russia and China have invested up to $9 billion in informal soft power, which is quite a bit more than we spend. They do so because propaganda, often disguised as news, works. It works today, as it did in previous decades and indeed centuries. British children spend an average of 127 minutes a day on TikTok, a Chinese app, and we saw Russian propaganda influence in the elections in Poland and Moldova recently. This is not the time for Britain to draw back. I continue to salute the BBC Russian team, which I visited earlier this year with the right hon. Member for Maldon on an Inter-Parliamentary Union visit. That team counters misinformation with impartial and accurate journalism, at significant personal cost.

Our greatest tool for soft power must be brought back from the brink, because once that point is reached, it will be increasingly difficult for us to recover such international influence.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this form of soft power, the BBC World Service—in particular, the Farsi and Russian services—is a much more cost-effective way to try to create democracy and democratic change in countries than military action is?

[John Slinger]

Absolutely. Of course, military action would be unthinkable in those cases, but what is thinkable is the truth being promulgated through impartial media.

In that panel earlier this week, we heard, for example, that after closing the Voice of America service, the US Agency for Global Media has failed to regenerate any Iranian listenership, or the amount of Iranian listenership that it used to have, for its broadcasts covering the current Iran-Israel crisis. Presence breeds trust, and the presence of the truth, in my view, is an absolute must.

Currently reaching about 400 million people a week in 42 languages, the BBC World Service is adapting rapidly and becoming more informative, engaging and appealing to a broader audience in an incredibly competitive attention economy. Clearly, the World Service has immense potential to bring people and nations together, and I am delighted that the most recent Budget increased funding by 31%.

Despite the significant budgetary pressures on the FCDO, I wish to use all the soft power that I possess to encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to do all she can to increase funding for the World Service and provide a cast-iron guarantee into the future. This is the crucial moment. We have an opportunity to prevent a diminution in our international power, just as that soft power and our British broadcasting values of tolerance, truth and impartiality are needed most. More than ever, we need to increase and protect the funding. When those values prosper, so do the world, freedom, hope and democracy.