Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

I remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to make a speech. When making speeches and interventions, Members should be aware that I will start the wind-ups at 2.28 pm. I call the Father of the House.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), for securing this important debate and for all his work. The Prime Minister obviously made an excellent choice.

Freedom of religion or belief should be the cornerstone of the United Kingdom’s foreign policy to ensure the rights of minorities around the world, in compliance with our obligations under the United Nations declaration of human rights. As has been said, nations with high levels of religious liberty and tolerance are more stable than those that oppress people who wish only to worship in peace.

I wish to focus on an issue that I raised a few weeks ago in the main Chamber at Church Commissioners questions: the plight of the Christians in Taybeh in the west bank and the violence from extremist settlers who are seeking to remove them from their land. I dedicate my speech to Mike Huckabee, Mr Trump’s choice as the United States ambassador to Israel, who is an evangelical pastor. He is also a strong supporter of these extremist settlers. The vast majority of our friends in Israel—the peaceful citizens of Israel—are totally opposed to the actions of these extremist settlers in the west bank.

Taybeh is an ancient village in the Holy Land, in the occupied west bank. In biblical times, it was known as Ephraim, which according to John’s gospel is the village where Christ went before his passion. It is now the last and only Christian-majority town in the west bank. It is under attack as we speak. Cardinal Pizzaballa, who is the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, the Greek Orthodox patriarch and other heads of churches in Jerusalem visited Taybeh on Monday following the recent violence. I place on record my thanks to the British consul general in Jerusalem, who accompanied the clergy on their mission to highlight to the world the plight of Taybeh.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this important debate. Religious persecution is not confined to any one group, belief or country. It is a global issue that threatens the fundamental right to freedom—the right to believe or not to believe as we choose, free from violence and repression.

I am lucky to represent Morecambe and Lunesdale, which is home to over 40 churches that stretch across our towns and villages from the north-east in Sedbergh right down to Heysham. Although I do not have any faith, I often find myself in churches talking to my constituents. Through countless conversations, I know that my constituents want people across the world to hold the same freedom that they do: to practise religion or to follow no faith at all; to believe as they choose; and to live without fear because of it. In one of those conversations, my constituent, a member of the Heysham Free Methodist church, brought to my attention the persecution of Christians in India, a topic that I have discussed in this Chamber before.

I want to look at the bigger picture and what happens when the state holds up one religion over another or turns a blind eye to faith or belief-based persecution. As a humanist, I am only too aware of the horrors of persecution based on faith or lack of faith, a threat that is made worse when it is state-sanctioned or state-permitted. Persecution on the grounds of faith or belief is not isolated; it is systemic, systematic and global. Government restrictions on freedom of religion or belief are now at their highest level since 2007. From the Baha’i in Iran to the Uyghurs in China, people across the world are not free to express their closely held beliefs or to practise their faith or lack of faith freely.

Those systems of persecution exist on a scale. It is not the case that people are either totally free or not free at all—it is not binary. Blasphemy laws exist in 91 nations on this earth, including in Northern Ireland, and they affect 57% of the global population. In 12 countries, a person can still be given the death penalty for blasphemy, and in 60 others, they could end up in prison. State enforcement of religious beliefs, whether explicit or de facto, is an affront to human rights and our democratic ideals. If we are not free to believe or not believe, we are not equal in dignity and rights.

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady knows this—she probably does—but the deputation to Nigeria went through the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief. We approached the Minister responsible and put forward a case for the release of Mubarak Bala, and I believe that we can take some credit for that intervention, along with many others, to ensure that his freedom was assured.

I thank the hon. Gentleman and all the other people involved; I believe that was part of Mubarak’s release and I am very grateful for it, as I am sure are Mubarak and his family. His story reminds us that non-religious belief can be just as dangerous as religious belief in the eyes of a repressive state.

I want to pay special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland for his work as the UK’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. The framework he introduced earlier this month sets out a really clear vision for the UK’s global leadership on this issue. It rightly focuses diplomatic efforts on 10 priority countries and on work through international bodies to build the long-term partnerships we need to drive change. As a Labour Government, we champion human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, not only because it is in our national interest to support an international rules-based order, but because it is simply the right thing to do. Those are not abstract ideals; they are the foundations of this Government’s mission and of any free society.

The evidence backs that approach. Countries that protect the rule of law and fundamental freedoms tend to be more stable, prosperous and resilient. When we share and support those values abroad, we help to build stronger international partners, and that contributes to the UK’s security, growth and development. We know that achieving that will be complex, and the plan recognises that we must work with other Governments, civil society and multilateral institutions to find common ground and deliver real change.

Producing real, on-the-ground change takes flexibility. In some cases, progress will come from bold commitments and public statements. In others, it will come through private discussions and quiet diplomacy. This is an approach guided by partnership and shared learning, working towards the shared goal of securing freedom of belief for everyone, everywhere.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for the role that he has taken on and the work ahead of him, which he has set out. The whole Chamber and the whole of Parliament will agree that the tone and manner with which he is approaching this complicated and difficult work will serve him and our country very well. As I suspect he would be happy to acknowledge, he is building on the legacy of his predecessor Fiona Bruce, the former Member for Congleton, who did so much to fill the role and build credibility for the United Kingdom across the globe.

The envoy is at the centre of a web of relationships with great people in this country who do so much to champion the input and the enthusiasms of our constituents across the United Kingdom and motivate us as MPs to raise these matters in the House of Commons. One of them is Merv Thomas, the president and founder of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, who said to me recently that he is always being told that religion is the cause of so many problems in the world. He said, “Well, I look at it this way: freedom of religious belief is perhaps one of the solutions.” That gets to the heart of what the role is about.

I am grateful to the envoy for setting out how his work will fit with the different elements of the Government’s foreign policy. That is critical. When we talk about matters such as national security and stability, trade and economic partnerships, the leadership role that we seek, the alliance building and the soft power that comes from being present in conversations about preventing humanitarian crises, we need to recognise that we gain a lot more credibility if we can be collaborative but principled and persistent in our willingness to engage on all those matters and able to have difficult conversations with countries with which we have relationships across those realms.

It is not a binary question; it is not that we cannot talk about what is happening with the Uyghur Muslims in China while recognising that China is an important economic actor in the world that needs to be respected. We need to find ways of interacting well together and respecting, as far as we can, what common ground exists. It troubles me sometimes that when we have statements in the House, we revert to a binary: “It’s all good or it’s all the opposite.” The hon. Member for North Northumberland grasps the right way to approach this.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this debate and for his work on this important issue. I would like to share two personal reflections that shape the way I view religious freedom and its place in our foreign policy.

The first reflection is on my lifelong faith. Between my mother’s deep Christian belief and spiritualism and my Church of England education, it seems I never stood much chance of avoiding belief altogether. Truth be told, I have never wanted to. I do not attend church nearly as often as I should, a failing I feel guilty about often, but I know without hesitation that when I need comfort or clarity, my faith—God, Jesus—is always there to support me.

The second reflection is on my heritage. I am half-Icelandic on my mother’s side and was raised with an acute awareness of my Viking roots. Iceland is a small nation of under 400,000 people. Some families, mine included, can trace their lineage back for more than a millennium. One notable ancestor is Thorgeir of Lightwater, a pagan chieftain and lawspeaker who in the year 1000 was tasked with an impossibly difficult decision: which religion Iceland would adopt. He spent a day and a night under a fur blanket in silent reflection—something that I have found myself tempted to do after reading social media commentary—and when his deliberation ended he declared that Iceland would adopt Christianity. Remarkably, he also decreed that individuals could continue to worship privately however they chose. Although that fell short of what today we would call full religious liberty, it was extraordinarily liberal for its time, and it avoided a bloody civil war between pagan and Christian factions.

Thorgeir’s story offers a sobering lesson: that belief is ultimately personal, that law cannot mandate conviction, and that practical compromise can safeguard peace. These are precisely the kinds of lesson that our foreign policy ought to embrace. Religious freedom is advanced when our diplomats, Ministers and civil servants understand the profound role that religion, religious practices and faith communities play in the societies we engage with abroad. In a UK political landscape that is largely secular, we must take care not to overlook the power of religion to drive development, mediate conflict and shape political identity.

Does the hon. Member agree that the UK’s credibility on promoting religious freedom abroad is significantly undermined by the deep cuts to official development assistance, which have reduced our ability to fund vital human rights and civil society work in fragile states where freedom of religion or belief is most at risk?