International Day of Democracy
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the International Day of Democracy.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. It is an honour to speak on this topic, not only as an MP deeply invested in the state of our democracy, but as the representative of the Cities of London and Westminster, where we are today. I was stunned to learn that this House has not marked International Day of Democracy since 2017—and how much has changed since then. At home, we have seen Parliament unlawfully prorogued to push through a Government’s partisan agenda, restrictions introduced on voting and freedom of protest, and a Prime Minister who broke the stringent lockdown rules he set for a nation of millions.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the unlawful constitutional vandalism wrought by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Having read recent reporting by The Guardian on his many commercial activities since leaving this place, does my hon. Friend agree that far stricter enforcement is required on the revolving door between Governments and the private sector? The current lobbying regulations surrounding that risk are clearly unfit for purpose.
Rachel Blake
I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. I agree that that is an area for considerably more thought.
Abroad, we have seen democracy in decline for a sixth consecutive year. According to analysis from Freedom House, in 2024, 60 countries experienced a deterioration in their political rights and liberties and only 34 secured improvements. Anti-democratic coups in central and west Africa, and the sustained illegal invasion of Ukraine by an increasingly authoritarian Russia, serve as reminders to us all that democracy is not just in decline, but being actively assaulted. At home and around the world, we are facing increasing radicalisation to the far left and far right, as the politics of meeting generational challenges, such as international conflicts, rewiring our global economy and countering climate change, are confronted by polarisation through disinformation and social media.
Last weekend, over 100,000 people marched through my constituency. Many expressed a long-standing freedom of speech without concern for harm or disorder, but some acted in ways that we need to condemn: assaults on members of law enforcement; speeches propagating racist conspiracy theories; foreign tech billionaires demanding “revolutionary” Government change to a democratically elected Administration; and calls to shoot the Prime Minister. That does not reflect who we are and what our democracy can achieve.
Many of those who marched on Saturday did so under the Union flag, which has so many times united us as a country; it united us at the millennium celebrations, the Olympics, and even every Thursday during lockdown as we clapped for our key workers. We cannot let this flag and our national pride be corrupted by the elements within this movement that espouse anti-British values.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Does she agree that our democracy, and wider democracies around the globe, need to be sufficiently strong, wide and deep to tolerate views and opinions that we may fundamentally disagree with, but are allowed to be expressed peacefully and democratically?
Rachel Blake
I would agree. I will come on to some of the ways in which we can strengthen our democracy later. I welcome the point made by the hon. Member. This movement cannot be supported in espousing anti-British values.
My constituency is home to Soho, built from the ground up by migrants and the LGBT community living, working and organising together. It is home to the City of London, whose status as a heart of business and growth has been strengthened by waves of refugees fleeing persecution, such as the 16th-century Huguenots. It is home to Fitzrovia, the heart of artistic and academic excellence from generations of freethinkers. This is the London that I know and love, and this is the country that I know and love, and that the leaders of far-right movements want to take away from us.
We have seen what it looks like when our rights and freedoms are taken away in the experience of those such as my constituent Jimmy Lai, who as of today has been detained unlawfully for 1,721 days for standing up for freedom in Hong Kong. That China would feel emboldened to imprison a British citizen, a journalist, a grandfather, and put him through a sham trial is completely unacceptable.
Our rules-based international order, which upheld fundamental human rights, has decayed at a remarkable rate. Some in this country would degrade it further by withdrawing from and dismantling the European convention on human rights, which the United Kingdom founded and which enshrines fundamental British values such as the right to life, and the freedoms of speech and thought, on an international level.
I also see threats to democracy at local level, in my work as a constituency MP. The frustration, disillusionment and disappointment with which constituents contact us is just a small signifier of the strength and depth of the malaise in our democracy today. We must confront head-on the fact that our democracy is at a crossroads. Voters increasingly feel that the social contract between them and their leaders is wearing thin, with only 12% of them trusting the Government to act in the popular interest, above that of their party.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate on renewing our democracy. First past the post served Labour and the Conservatives well in the 20th century, but the blowing open of electoral politics by smaller political parties means that many more people are now feeling under-represented. Does the hon. Member accept that it is time to replace first past the post with proportional representation?
Rachel Blake
I welcome the hon. Member’s suggestion about reviewing and considering the alternative ways in which we can conduct our democracy. I will come on to some of that later.
People feel that their vote does not matter, and that politicians are not listening. People feel that the system is broken and does not work for them. But we are not powerless. We are not just a solitary ship being buffeted by the tides of change. We sit today in the mother of all Parliaments, where, despite some weaknesses, the UK remains one of the most advanced and resilient democracies in the world. Our democracy means everyone does have a say. This place has adapted with the times, whether that is with the extension of the franchise, the tempering of the monarchy and the Lords or, most recently, the devolution of power to the nations and regions of the UK by successive Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments.
I was proud to be elected on a manifesto that promised generational change to our democracy—changes that this Government are enacting. We are extending the franchise to the 16 and 17-year-olds we already trust to pay tax and serve in our armed forces. We are tackling the influence of dirty money in politics, with new restrictions on foreign donations and improved transparency, and restoring independence to the Electoral Commission.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The hon. Member mentioned young people. Last Friday, I met some A-level politics students at Huish Episcopi academy in my constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton and I was struck by the political enthusiasm of the young women in the classroom. However, we face an alarming rise of extreme misogyny through people like Andrew Tate. If women and girls feel that politics is hostile to them they retreat from it altogether, so does the hon. Member agree it is important that we show young women that there are political role models, so that they know their place is at the heart of British politics?
Rachel Blake
I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Member on the work that she is doing to encourage and support young women into politics. That is something really important in our role as Members of Parliament. I definitely agree that we need to be supporting women into politics, as Members of Parliament and throughout public life, to give young women confidence that there is a place for them in public life.
We also need to push power to our communities and neighbourhoods with the landmark English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, with a community right to buy and a right for any area to ask any power of central Government. I think we can go further still. That is why I am so honoured to open this debate. It is inspiring to know that Members across Westminster Hall want to talk about our democracy and how we can have these debates together and openly.
I am delighted to be joined by colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, with whom I am working on the UK’s anti-corruption strategy. I know they will agree with me that we need to fight head-on the money and influence attempting to corrupt our politics. I am really pleased to see so many MPs present who share my background in local government and so keenly support this Government’s agenda to decentralise power out into communities. Residents in my constituency and across the country are raring to go to take on the responsibilities that for too long have been held in the Palace of Westminster, not the Cities of London and Westminster.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am very aware of her background in local government. Does she agree that the local level is where we see democracy work? We see excellent representation by councillors and an opportunity to have local debate through neighbourhood plans or other mechanisms. Does she agree that we must prioritise those local voices and that local representation to protect our democracy?
Rachel Blake
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and for that support for local councillors and the hard work that they do every single day working with communities. It is important that we support and empower them to deliver for communities. In fact, that is a vital part of restoring confidence in our democracy.
It is a pleasure to see members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, who are leading a wide-ranging discussion on the future of our electoral system. I know many of us across the House are concerned about the division that our electoral system has seen. It is right that we have a robust discussion about that. In recent polling for More in Common, 62% of voters stated that our political and social institutions are worth preserving and improving in spite of the headwinds that we face. This is the country that I know: one that faces the challenges before us and acts to meet the moment. We can address the frustration and disillusionment that last weekend saw people marching in my constituency, while making our democracy richer and more inclusive.
Today let us mark International Day of Democracy by recognising the threats that face us and the opportunities that change can bring. I look forward to hearing from all the speakers gathered here today and from the Minister, what such change can and should look like.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they need to bob to catch my eye—I can see they are already doing that. Let us try to get everyone in by limiting the length of speeches. I will not set a limit; I will leave that to Members’ discretion. I call Liz Saville Roberts.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Sir John. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this debate. Today is Owain Glyndŵr Day, which celebrates Wales’s first Parliament in Machynlleth and in Harlech 620-odd years ago.
This past weekend Elon Musk addressed those gathered in London. He spoke about freedom of speech, about knowing what is real and defending Britain’s future and democracy. That is what he said, but at the heart of his remarks was an explicit justification for division and violence. That should concern us all because it is fundamentally at odds with the values of democracy. Mr Musk has already contributed to destabilising political life in the United States. His decision to intervene in our debates makes it clear that we are not immune, so parliamentarians—I think this will be a common theme across the Chamber today—must choose how to act to counter the rising tide of authoritarianism.
Silence is a dangerous form of consent that leaves the space open for others to harness people’s unhappiness to their own political ambitions when, in reality, much of that unhappiness is a direct result of decisions taken by those in power and the very wealthy—decisions that benefit themselves and, at the same time, impoverish whole communities.
Too many people have no secure roof over their heads. Too many of our public spaces, sources of community pride—our parks, libraries, schools, hospitals and even our roads—are left to decay. Public services are hanging on a thread, and the quality of day-to-day life is evidently declining. Years of austerity and poor policy decisions have very real consequences for people’s lives. We need to recognise that, because people are rightly angry.
Into that void of anger rushes misinformation, disinformation and lies straddling the no man’s land between empirical facts and tub-thumping opinion. Social media moguls play on our basic needs for belonging, affirmation and friends in an atomised age of lonely screens. They monetise us and our very actions in a cynical mockery of community. The rise of artificial intelligence exacerbates and accelerates that, creating new ways to generate and spread falsehoods. That is why institutions that strengthen democracy are so important, now more than ever.
I will speak first of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which supported more than 44,000 people last year in 64 locally led programmes in 58 countries and territories across the world. It is primarily funded by the Foreign Office, and I am glad that the Minister is here to speak for that Department. Those programmes give communities the tools to hold power to account and to build resilience against those who seek to undermine democracy. I am proud to be the small parties governor on the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
On one Westminster Foundation trip, I learned how Finland, Europe’s most literate country, has made media literacy a key part of the education curriculum, so that even six-year-olds are equipped with the skills to spot fake news and online manipulation.
I have also met Joe Brinker, the policy fellow for democratic resilience at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. NATO’s article 2 states that member countries will work towards “strengthening their free institutions” and promote social “stability and well-being.” The Parliamentary Assembly has called for a centre for democratic resilience at NATO headquarters to counter the threats posed by authoritarian regimes and give strength to NATO’s commitment to democracy. That aspect of NATO’s work is critical, and we should be pushing for more attention to it and raise our expectations of what it does.
In closing, I hope other Members will join in referring to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy at a time of worldwide uncertainty. I also hope to secure a meeting for other governors with the Minister to ensure there is sufficient funding and reach for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to continue to function so effectively. Our values include democracy at their heart, and they cannot be defended by words alone. We should be willing to pay for what we want to keep.
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.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I commend the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this debate. It is an absolute pleasure to speak in this debate, as the importance of democracy lies in the protection of rights, the accountability of power and, indeed, public participation. That is what gives each and every individual of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and beyond, a right to civil liberty. I am honoured to speak in support of that.
I welcome the Minister to his new role as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs. He is probably glad that he is no longer in charge of the Whip. He hopefully has an easier job. I look forward to his contribution. He always has a calmness, and in this debate we will see how calm he can be when it comes to answering all the questions. I wish him well.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred to Jimmy Lai, and I wholeheartedly agree with what she said. He is deteriorating, health-wise, in a Hong Kong prison on trumped-up charges made by the Chinese Communist party. It is important that we, in this House and elsewhere, take a stand.
For decades, democracy has been used across Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure free and fair elections. With our universal suffrage for all citizens aged 18 and over, the separation of powers and the rule of law that all must follow, democracy in the United Kingdom has delivered representation and accountability, but it must always remain resilient, fair and inclusive. Democracy must be the cornerstone of any country, as we have seen in Northern Ireland from the era of the troubles until now, albeit there is still much work to be done.
This debate is timely. I, as an elected representative, would not feel right participating in it without mentioning the attack on democracy and the freedom of expression that we all witnessed in Utah last week in the murder of Charlie Kirk. It hit all too close to home, following the murder of our own David Amess and Jo Cox, and many others.
Free speech—the right to speak freely—is fundamental to any democracy, or any state with democratic principles, as this mother of Parliaments very much demonstrates. Back home in Northern Ireland, we know all too well the damage that political violence can do. It is upsetting and shocking to witness further instances of it in other parts of the world. Each Member who represents Northern Ireland, and indeed those who do not, will understand the 30 years of conflict that we had, to which many of us, and our families, were subject directly.
Charlie Kirk spoke boldly for what he believed. He used his voice to challenge the damaging culture of the day and to shape the future of America. Charlie highlighted how one person’s words can move hearts, spark debate and leave a mark on history. On that gazebo last weekend was written, “Prove me wrong”. He was open to debate and to exchanging views. At the same time, he was open to being able to persuade others of what he was trying to say.
Mr Gregory Campbell
The murder of Charlie Kirk shows the most concerning aspect of democracy in the United States, but almost as concerning was the aftermath, when a number of people sought to justify his murder, and to explain it and define it, by quoting—sometimes in context, sometimes out of context—something he is alleged to have said. We need to be careful in the aftermath of violent acts.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nothing grieved me as much, and probably grieved others in this House and further afield, as those awful remarks that were almost rejoicing in Charlie Kirk’s murder. I find it almost inconceivable to comprehend that, especially when a wife and children, and many others, are grieving.
It cannot be overestimated how loved and well respected Charlie was, especially among the young people of this generation. I have some seven staff who work with me, and there are four young ones among them. Those four are in their 20s, and they were genuinely devastated by the news—they said they felt grief and loss. That tells me that the impact of the murder of Charlie Kirk went far beyond America and across this great nation as well. The shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), has tabled an early-day motion on the murder, and I have tabled one as well.
Those in my constituency from older age groups have also outlined how they are equally as shocked and saddened. Charlie spread the word of God, the word of family, faith and freedom, and the importance of conservative politics today. I do not care what someone’s political aspirations or religious views are—they are not important. The fact is that no individual on this Earth deserves to have their life ripped away from them.
Lizzi Collinge
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the murder of Charlie Kirk was an appalling act. No one should ever feel threatened by violence; no one should ever be killed for their beliefs or their actions. However much we disagree with the horrendous nature of his death, does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the statements made by Charlie Kirk in life meant that other people felt that their freedom was being threatened, and that they were not safe to speak out?
Jim Shannon
I agree that we have the right to freedom of speech, and it is very important to have that. Charlie Kirk took full value of his right to speak. Tommy Robinson, whom I disagree with very much, has a right to speak as well.
What we need to be careful about in life is this. I was speaking to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) about how when I am on recess I spend at least two half days on the doors, just to keep in touch with people and understand what they are thinking. The issue of immigration is massive. Now, I may not agree with all the things that are said about immigration—I have my own point of view—but I understand that many people worry about immigration. Those are not the people who are going out to wreck and smash; they are ordinary, middle-class, churchgoing people who have concerns. There are many concerns that people have. We should be careful with our words. I try to be careful with my words in this House, and I hope that others do the same.
Liz Saville Roberts
We all agree that the murder of Charlie Kirk was horrific—it was abhorrent. That is the only response to it. I am sure that we also feel that it is the duty of Governments, following these terrible actions, to ensure that community safety is a priority. There is always a tension in allowing and enabling voices from across a whole spectrum, while at the same time maintaining that safety. That is one of the not irreconcilable tensions of a democracy, and it is something we must face every time we are challenged in this way.
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.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I am going to call people for the wind-ups just before 10.30 am. You can see what time it is, so let us try to get everyone in—be powerful and pithy, please.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) not just on securing the debate, but on a powerful speech, and especially on her tribute to how our Parliament is evolving. It is vital to recognise that we have agency in this place and that there is cause for hope.
Not only is it customary to open a speech in that way, but it speaks to something that is core to our democracy: that civility matters. We make progress as a society and as a country through considered debate and by contesting ideas. We value the opinions of those on all sides of the political divide. The process of building consensus is invariably a strength and not a weakness.
People who represent different political views or parties can be, and often are, our friends. I consider everyone who serves in the House of Commons to be a colleague. Many will be my political opponents, but they will never be my enemies. That may seem self-evident in a mature democracy such as the United Kingdom, but we live in a time when democracy needs renewal and reaffirmation.
We can take nothing for granted, and the comments of Elon Musk on Saturday demonstrate why. At a rally that was purportedly about the uniting the kingdom, Musk told the crowd that
“violence is coming to you”
and that Parliament should be dissolved, on the basis that he did not like the result of the last election very much.
Since 1929, we have run fully democratic elections in our country, with universal suffrage for men and women. Our democracy has endured and grown stronger through the horrors of war with the Nazis, global financial crises and a pandemic. We are not going to be cowed by a foreign billionaire who does not live in this country and cannot even pretend to understand it.
We must not overstate the political abilities of this man. A couple of days ago, Musk announced that his AI tool, Grok, would once again be sent for reprogramming because it inconveniently shared facts that contradicted its master’s argument. If he cannot win an argument with his own AI tool, he is not going to win an argument with the British people.
We should have confidence in our democracy but never be complacent about its future. We live in a world of mass information, where private companies that design social media algorithms hold more power to shape political debate than the editors of newspapers or the producers of broadcast news. The debate online has coarsened, which is precisely why our conduct in Parliament matters more than ever: we have to set an example. At times, it may feel quaint that we refer to each other in this place as hon. Members, but there is honour in debate, disagreement and democracy.
There is no doubt that we live in fragile times. Putin has brought war to Europe, and I am speaking on the morning that the United Nations commission of inquiry has concluded that Israel’s leadership has committed four of the five acts of genocide defined under the 1948 genocide convention.
The times we live in make it all the more important to look back at how democracy became a beacon of hope after we emerged from the second world war, the darkest chapter in our history. The response then to suffering was not to turn inward, to stigmatise or to attack others—it was the opposite. Signed by 50 nations in June 1945, the UN charter’s purpose was to reaffirm
“to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women”.
It went on to say that all signatories must
“practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours”.
This country was at the vanguard of defending democracy even in our darkest hour. If a previous generation could succeed in championing democracy then, we can and must do it now.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests, particularly as board member for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
The UN has titled this International Day of Democracy “From Voice to Action”, which is a fitting message, because we need those who support democracy and freedom now more than ever. We are at a crucial moment. As a liberal and a democrat, I was horrified by events last week. The murder of Charlie Kirk in the US has captured the world’s attention, and rightly so. No one in this room will be surprised to learn that I disagreed with the opinions and thoughts that Mr Kirk pushed through his social media channels and debating tours, but as a liberal I believe it is my job to challenge such opinions through debate and argument.
People should not die for holding opposing views, and it is vital that liberals stand up against violence and bloodshed because, tragically, we have experienced such events too. The horrendous murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess are proof that we in this country are not immune to attacks on our democratic way of life. We should never take our freedoms for granted.
Research published last week showed that global freedom levels have declined for the 20th consecutive year. The UN Secretary-General said that the very rule of law, and justice and democracy are
“under assault from disinformation, division and shrinking civic space”.
A threat to democracy globally is a threat to our democracy here, and democracies across the globe are declining and suffering. Cuts to the aid budget are driving the downward spiral. I heard first hand from the Red Cross that next year it will have to reduce its operations by 18%, despite there being a 25% rise in global conflict.
Respect for international humanitarian law has also waned. We have seen the deadliest year on record for humanitarian workers, with hundreds dying and many more injured or being held captive.
There are also threats to our democratic way of life here in the UK. The Centre for Countering Digital Hate has reported that the platform X has not followed its own rules on preventing the amplification of serious political violence. We know that the spread of misinformation and the incitement of violence go hand in hand. Last summer’s violent riots, fuelled by misinformation, almost spread to my Cheadle constituency. I was proud that communities and faith groups from all over the constituency came together to show solidarity.
The threats posed by the growth of social media and the small handful of media barons who control the platforms need to be addressed. We cannot allow this pattern of misinformation and disruption to our way of life continue as it is.
Despite the worrying developments, we must reflect on and embrace the existing strength of UK democracy. I am very proud to represent the Cheadle constituency, a place with a profound sense of identity and strong community cohesion. It is driven by community groups who bring voice to action. Whether by standing up for nature, tackling flooding or fighting to get better access to transport, community groups are, as the UN Secretary General said,
“shaping their societies through dialogue, participation, and trust.”
Liz Saville Roberts
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. I am sure he will agree that, with the United States withdrawing from grant in aid, there is the potential for the role of the United Kingdom and its presence on the world stage to be considerably enhanced by the actions we take to support democracy both at home and abroad.
Mr Morrison
I absolutely agree. The Government must invest more in our democracy at home to ensure that the country stays on the right path, with sustained economic growth, thriving global partnerships and a place on the world stage that is as influential as it is admired.
The Government must increase the aid budget, as it is not only a lifeline for millions but a strategic priority that strengthens our democratic allies and makes future allies around the globe. We cannot and must not ignore this soft power. I am proud to sit on the board of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which, for more than 30 years, has worked tirelessly on programmes that have supported so many democratic nations to grow and prosper. These are huge success stories for our nation. These are huge moments that place us as a key player on the world stage, and we should not take them for granted.
I will conclude by returning to my opening remarks. We are at a crucial moment both at home and abroad, with the rise of extremism, the polarisation of debate and misinformation being fuelled by the growing influence of social media. We, as liberals and democrats, must take a stand. If we do not, I truly worry what will happen next.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I call Lizzi Collinge. There are two after you, Lizzi, so bear that in mind.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this important debate.
We rightly talk about a lack of trust in politics, and there is one key element as to why that is: the first-past-the-post voting system. I found a beautiful quote the other day from Elie Wiesel:
“The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.”
We can see that indifference in the lack of participation in even general elections. Left unchanged, the first-past-the-post system will continue to erode public trust, produce unfair and unrepresentative outcomes, and undermine the stability of our democracy. A majority of the voting public support a change to the voting system. What I and other members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections are calling for is a national commission on electoral reform, so that all options can be examined independently and impartially.
It will come as no surprise to anyone that I have views on what a new electoral system should have. It needs to be more proportionate, but it needs to take into account other things as well. I believe in constituency MPs. I believe in each MP’s representing a defined geographical area. However, the guidelines at the last boundary review, which had very tight numbers, have left us with some slightly odd constituencies.
My constituency crosses the county boundaries of Lancashire and Westmorland, and it includes the Yorkshire Dales national park. I have three planning authorities, which is great fun. Although it is great for me to walk through the Yorkshire dales to see a red squirrel in Cowgill, I can see why people in Dentdale do not feel particularly connected to people in Morecambe, which is an hour’s drive away, so I think the Boundary Commission needs a bit more flexibility. I also think that any voting system should allow voters to rank their preferences, so they can say, “That person is my favourite. That person is also acceptable, as is that person.” They should also be able to not rank people if they definitely do not wish them to be elected. Some of my colleagues have spoken about the action that the Labour Government are taking on political donations, which I welcome.
We cannot talk about the deficits in our democracy without talking about young people. We have a lovely history of older people bemoaning the youth of today; I found a brilliant social media thread with examples that go back to Plato. We have to stop berating young people for not engaging and do the work ourselves. I know that some people are on TikTok—that is not really for me. I do not think disengagement comes from the lack of me lip-synching along to pop songs. It comes from young people not being listened to and their concerns not being addressed.
We are taking some steps. The Labour Government are giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, which is fantastic. If people start voting young, they keep voting. I know people who are older than me who have not voted just because they do not know how it works. They literally do not know how to physically go and vote, which is a real shame. More foundational changes also need to be made. If elections hinge on certain constituencies or certain voting blocs, then policies and campaigns will cater to them at the expense of other groups. Whenever I see young people, I tell them to vote. I say, “If you vote, you’ll get policies that work for you.”
This week, the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections published suggested terms of reference for a national commission on electoral reform. This is a clear proposal for the Government to set up a national commission that could independently ask the big questions about our democracy. How do we build an electoral system that represents all voices fairly? How do we inspire public trust? How can we ensure that every vote, every voice and every citizen counts? It is only by answering these questions that we can protect our democracy, strengthen our democratic institutions and show that every voter matters.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
When we think of the International Day of Democracy, it is relevant and appropriate to reflect on what the essence of a functioning democracy is. When we distil it down, the essence of a functioning democracy is that those who are governed elect those who govern them, and that those who make the laws for any people are elected by the people over whom those laws have control. That is the very essence of a functioning democracy.
We might talk about things around the world, but we need to stop, pause and ask ourselves, “Is that operating in this United Kingdom?” I have to say that in the part of the United Kingdom that I come from—Northern Ireland—that fundamental has been shredded. It is not allowed to operate because not in one, not in 30, but in 300 areas of law, the laws that govern Northern Ireland are made not in Stormont or Westminster, or by anyone elected from anywhere in Northern Ireland. They are made by a foreign Parliament—indeed, by the Parliament of 27 other nations. Why? Because of the iniquitous Windsor framework.
Annexe 2, which I invite people to look at, lists hundreds upon hundreds of laws that are made in the European Parliament—not here—but enforced on Northern Ireland. Those laws touch upon the fundamentals of many of our lives. They govern the trade of Northern Ireland; they govern the manufacturing of goods in Northern Ireland, and how we package those goods, their contents, and how they are labelled; they govern the environment; and they even govern rights under article 2 of the Windsor framework, and culminate in the imposition of a partitioning border in this United Kingdom.
So, before we get too excited about the lack of democracy elsewhere in the world, let us take the mote out of our own eye and work towards restoring that most fundamental principle: that wherever someone lives, they should be able to elect those who make the laws that govern them. It is a shame of the past Government and of the current Government that they continue, sanguinely, to allow this situation to prevail.
I hear talk about young people. I just heard talk about, “Isn’t it great that young people will be able to vote?” I recently listened to a video from the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). He said, “We want young people to feel they have the same chance as everyone else to make the laws to which they are subject.” How I wish that applied to not just the young but the old in Northern Ireland—the right to make the laws that govern us.
We present ourselves as a world-leading democracy, and yet are killing the legitimate expectation in Northern Ireland that people should be able to make the laws that govern them and not be subject to colony-like rule, because the essence of colonial rule is that people are governed by someone else’s laws, as they are not considered worthy of making their own laws, such that a foreign jurisdiction must make the laws for them.
That is the essential constitutional and democratic affront of the Windsor framework. Let us set about taking the mote out of the eye of the United Kingdom. Let us set about restoring fundamental democracy to Northern Ireland.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I call Jeevun Sandher. I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesman at 10.28 am.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. The truth is that today democracy is dying and we have to face that if we want to save it as it stands. We are living in a divided nation, where people are losing faith in democracy because they cannot afford a decent life, they do not see a way forward and they see others who can. A nation as divided as ours cannot stand and it will not endure unless we protect and save it.
We are divided by economics, by geography and online. We live in a nation where record numbers cannot afford a decent living. We live in different places in our country. Young people go to university and then never come back home. They live in major cities, living entirely different lives to those they have left behind. We occupy completely different spaces online. On average, we spend two and a half hours scrolling a day, hearing and listening to things that others do not, inhabiting completely different worlds.
If we want to address that, and want people to once again have faith in our democracy, we need both a policy answer and a political answer. On the policy side, people need to see that democracy can and does deliver for them. There is a cost of living crisis today. What delivering means is good jobs in every single place for people. It means places where people can cohere and come together in their local communities, as well as ending the pervading sense of loneliness that leads people to live their lives online, seeing more extreme content, engaging with it, living within it and being driven by it.
More than that, there is a political answer. How do we come together as one nation and one people? The answer is by living up to the greatest values of Britishness—unity, decency and determination. That is what has made this nation make the impossible seem only remarkable. It is how we saved democracy in Europe and saw it spread across the globe. It is how we came together during a pandemic. And beyond those great moments are the small, everyday ones that make life worth while—having a pint, queuing politely, a cup of tea. That is what it means to be British, cohering as one nation, together.
The radical right will say, “No, no, no—we can fix all our problems by attacking immigrants.” The radical left will say, “It is all about corporations.” It is for us to say that we stand as one British people for decency— not blaming, but cohering together. Unity, decency, determination: that is how we protect our democracy, that is how we save it and that is how we keep it for future generations.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Thank you very much to everyone for being so disciplined with their speeches. We have had an excellent debate so far. Let us hope that continues. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this really interesting debate. I echo your words, Sir John—it has been really valuable. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, many of which I agreed with very strongly and some of which I did not agree with quite so much, but it has been an excellent illustration of what a functioning democracy looks like on this International Day of Democracy.
It is often said these days that we face a crisis in democracy. Authoritarian regimes in Beijing and Moscow become bolder, while long-standing democracies in Europe and the USA appear to struggle in the face of populism. It has never been more important for us as British parliamentarians to stand against those who would erode and diminish our hard-fought democratic freedoms, both here and abroad.
I will speak today about this crisis, but also about the opportunities that the response to it presents both here in the UK and around the world. It starts with respecting the building blocks of any successful democracy—the rule of law, free and fair elections, rights and freedoms, and accountability and transparency.
In some countries, the erosion of these building blocks is worrying. In Georgia, for instance, the stakes could not be higher. Last November the Georgian Government suspended EU accession talks, a choice that outraged a nation where polls consistently show overwhelming support for integration with Europe. Since then, protesters have filled Rustaveli Avenue almost daily, braving batons and water cannons to say, “Our future is ours”.
Over the summer, the Georgian Dream Government started arresting opposition leaders. Just weeks ago, I was informed that my friend Giorgi Vashadze, a leading opposition figure, had been arrested and sentenced to eight months in prison. Just yesterday another, Elene Khoshtaria, was arrested. The heinous crime of which she is accused? Damage to the mayor of Tbilisi’s election posters. How we respond to these challenges to democracy defines us as much as it defines those countries who are seeing their rights diminished.
Another example is Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the Dayton peace agreement is being undermined by Milorad Dodik and his breakaway Republika Srpska. Less than a week ago, Dodik was hosted by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow. The decision under the last Government to withdraw British troops from the EUFOR peacekeeping force in 2020 was a strategic blunder. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to recommit to the EUFOR mission, to support the civic groups painstakingly building bridges between communities and to reinforce Britain’s commitment to democracy and peace in the Balkans.
That also holds true in Serbia, where anger over corruption, negligence and brutality erupted after the Novi Sad railway station disaster last November. What began as mourning for victims became a nationwide anti-corruption movement, drawing hundreds of thousands on to the street. Rather than listening, President Vučić smeared protesters as foreign agents and invited Russian backing, while riot police fired stun grenades and tear gas. There were five nights of unrest and party offices in flames, but still there has been no meaningful reform.
The UK must send an unmistakable message: the Balkans cannot become a playground for Moscow’s interference. That means fair and transparent elections where the results are respected. Those of us in positions of responsibility and power must uphold those standards. If we do not, the consequences can be violent, as we saw in January 2021 when the US Congress was stormed by those who agreed with the current US President that the election result, in which he had been clearly defeated, was illegitimate and sought to overturn it.
Across Europe and around the world, we find democracy under pressure. From Tbilisi to Hong Kong, hard-won freedoms are being eroded, legislatures hollowed out and the voices of citizens silenced. The Liberal Democrats understand that democracy is more than just a mechanism for simply choosing Governments; it is a covenant between people and power—between rights and responsibility. It is how ordinary citizens hold the mighty to account. These crises are a symptom of a broader malaise.
James Naish
On the point about accountability, the hon. Member may be aware that at the end of August, the leader of Nottinghamshire county council banned the Nottingham Post and Nottinghamshire Live from speaking to him and his organisation with immediate effect. That included a ban on the local democracy reporting service. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me and the Society of Editors that picking and choosing media scrutiny is avoiding accountability, it is profoundly wrong and it is dangerous to our democracy?
James MacCleary
Yes, I did see that story, and it is absolutely shocking. Anyone who purports to care about free speech and accountability, then bans journalists from attending meetings for no good reason, does not respect that at all. We cannot pick and choose who provides that scrutiny. I have not spoken at length here about the media, but it performs a fundamental role. We have spoken today about the iniquitous role of some social media, and that has shown the transition in the way that people consume information about democracy. We must protect and support local government reporters, which the hon. Member mentioned, who are absolutely essential to the democratic process in this country. That is an important point.
I was just about to say that globally, records show declines in press freedom on every continent. Rule of law is slipping. One in five nations saw a deterioration in freedom of expression, economic equality and access to justice. Hong Kong activists face intimidation, even on British soil, with Chinese Communist party-linked bounties pinned to lamp posts, even in our own towns. In Iran, the Revolutionary Guard exports terror and targets women demanding freedom. In Russia, Vladimir Putin claimed an 87% “victory” in a sham election while jailing and killing rivals. These regimes do not simply repress at home; they meddle abroad, launder their money through London and seek to divide our alliances.
Crucially, Britain’s credibility must start at home. Many people feel that democracy is not working for them in this country. They feel detached and distanced from this place, and look to those who offer easy answers. Our politics is realigning, and our system of democracy must realign with it. That means real electoral reform; a system of proportional representation that reflects what people actually voted for. There is a real danger that at the next election the distorted first-past-the-post system, which both the Conservative and Labour parties have done so much to protect, will sweep them away. The time for change is now.
Democracy is something precious that we must all work to protect, but it is not certain, and it is not inevitable. Too many people who claim to cherish our democracy now spend time subverting it—deliberately or not—by undermining our judiciary, discrediting serious media outlets and attacking the integrity of election results that do not suit them. The Liberal Democrats’ answer is clear: we must restore Britain’s moral authority by defending rights robustly, here and abroad; champion a proportional electoral system, so that every vote counts and political monopolies cannot fester; enshrine the ministerial code in law; uphold the Human Rights Act 1998 against those who would dilute it; impose Magnitsky-style sanctions on those who persecute in Hong Kong, Georgia, Serbia and elsewhere; and fund development and diplomacy properly by reversing aid cuts that leave vacuums for autocrats to exploit.
Democracy is not merely a ballot box. It is a citizen in Tbilisi protesting without fear; a journalist in Belgrade exposing corruption without a midnight knock at the door; a student in Hong Kong refusing to be silenced by Beijing; a Ukrainian citizen voting for their future under Russian fire; and a voter in Lewes knowing that their vote will really count. Authoritarianism spreads when democracy grows timid, and we Liberal Democrats will not be timid. We will stand with the people of Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia, with Hong Kong’s exiles and Ukraine’s heroic defenders, and with every community fighting to have their voice heard. Britain must be known as a country that does not just lecture on democracy, but lives it, defends it and invests in it.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this timely debate to mark the International Day of Democracy. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition I absolutely endorse her words about Jimmy Lai; her constituent should be released immediately.
It is right that this debate has been brought to the Floor of the House today, and that we all pause and reflect on the centrality of democracy, which in various forms runs right the way through our own national story and to the principles that we the United Kingdom hold dear across the world. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the birthplace of parliamentary democracy. Our history, our institutions and our very identity as a nation are bound up by that great achievement of democracy.
The story of our constitution—the balance between Crown and Parliament, and the empowerment of the individual through common law—was a British innovation that has evolved organically over many centuries. By the good fortune of our history and the wisdom of our forebears, we achieved a parliamentary system that blends monarchy and an upper Chamber, and which includes the state Church, the judiciary, science, the armed forces, academia and business. Of course, we have the vehicle to represent the popular will of the people here in this democratically elected House of Commons. Despite what some would describe as anachronisms of history, I believe that we in this country have a model parliamentary democracy. At the heart of our democracy is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty: our people, through their elected representatives, are the final authority. That is the cornerstone of our freedom.
Britain’s democratic reach extends far beyond these islands. From the very outset of our imperial past, England, then Great Britain, and then the United Kingdom was able to replicate the best of our democratic traditions in the far reaches of the planet. In many of our former colonies, the right to vote was established and extended even more broadly than it was at the same time in the United Kingdom. The Commonwealth of Nations embodies these democratic principles: 56 nations bound together not by force, but by free choice and by the shared democratic values enshrined in the Commonwealth charter. I believe that the Commonwealth of Nations is an undervalued institution. To have its headquarters a mere few minutes’ walk from where we sit today surely makes us the envy of any western democracy.
I read with great interest ahead of this debate the briefing from the Westminster Foundation for Democracy —an organisation that I was proud to serve as a board member for nine years and have worked with for 20 to 30 years. It was established by John Major’s Government following the fall of the Berlin wall and the iron curtain, at the time when Margaret Thatcher was our Prime Minister. We commemorate the 100th anniversary of her birth next month, on 13 October. As we all know, Mrs Thatcher was a courageous leader, who was not afraid to oppose communism and stood up for freedom and democracy in Europe, resulting in an end to the communist tyranny that dominated the eastern side of the continent.
In 1993, I established a freedom training programme, with the support of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, through the Conservative party’s international office and the European Young Conservatives, which I chaired at the time, to help to spread the ideas of free people, free nations, free markets, democracy and the rule of law. We were doing all that via sister parties; the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, all political parties did the same. I worked with countries ranging from Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia to Belarus—where I launched the Free Belarus campaign in 1997—Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Moldova and Albania, as well as Ukraine and Russia, and even nations as far away as Argentina, a country that regained its democracy after Margaret Thatcher ensured the defeat of the military dictatorship in 1982 by the forces of the Crown in the south Atlantic.
Andrew Rosindell
I am afraid not, because we are very limited for time.
Britain should do more to strengthen international democracy, and the Commonwealth is a perfect vehicle for that. We have seen a queue of nations, particularly on the African continent, that want to join the Commonwealth. A good example of that is Togo. I am proud to have assisted that nation’s accession to the Commonwealth, which formally took place in 2022, following my visit to Togo in 2019. Therefore I ask the Minister: what are the Government doing to assist the Commonwealth with its operations abroad? Surely the Commonwealth should be central to this Government’s strategy in promoting democracy and our democratic traditions abroad.
We are seeing the rise of authoritarian regimes around the world. I am thinking of, among others, the People’s Republic of China, Russia and Iran, the leaders of which came together in a show of force in Beijing only a fortnight ago. These countries pose a serious threat to democracy around the world. Therefore I ask the Minister: why are the Government willing to give the world’s leading authoritarian country the largest embassy in Europe and a base to spy on its dissenting citizens—those who simply disagree with Chinese communism? These nations have openly expressed their intent of reshaping the international system, so how is Britain making use of its seat on the UN Human Rights Council to push back against those who would seek to water down our democratic norms?
Also, of course, there is the matter of the Chagos islands. The Government denied the Chagossian people any form of serious consultation over the future of their homeland and ultimately decided to hand their islands, which belong to them, over to a nation in cahoots with China. Will the Minister reflect on the discussion we have had today and give the Chagossian people the democratic right, which I believe they are entitled to and which all of us, regardless of party, are supporting today—the right to determine their own future? That is democracy. Decolonisation must mean giving self-determination to those whose homeland it is. Why should our loyal and God-fearing British Chagossian friends be denied that right?
In closing, I will mention, as many Members have done today, the horrifying event that took place in the United States of America last week. Charlie Kirk’s murder was, I believe, an affront to the democratic values that have bound our two nations together for hundreds of years. Of course, Members across the House may not have agreed with Charlie’s views on a number of issues—we all disagree, on all kinds of issues—but this is a place where we can discuss our differences and the pursuit of truth in well-intentioned debate, without intimidation, hatred or violence. So I believe it is fitting to conclude with a quote from Charlie that sums him up best. He is someone who I actually met, when he came to the House of Commons in 2018—I gave him a tour and he went to Speaker’s House for a Christian celebration. Let me end my comments today by quoting from Charlie, because I believe that what he said encapsulates the very issue we are discussing today:
“When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts. When marriages stop talking, divorce happens. When civilizations stop talking, civil war ensues. When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group…What we as a culture have to get back to is being able to have reasonable disagreement where violence is not an option.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his remarks about my appointment—I think most Members do not realise that I have been silent for a good two years, so it is nice to know that the voice box is still working.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and I thank Members from across the House for the cordial way in which we have debated today—clearly without everyone agreeing, which is the whole point of democracy in this place and in institutions around our United Kingdom. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this debate to mark such an important day and for her work to advocate for her constituent, Jimmy Lai. Mr Lai’s case remains a priority for the UK Government. We continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release Mr Lai. I am also grateful for the thoughtful contributions of other hon. Members and will try to respond to all the points raised.
In these unpredictable times of global tension and turmoil, with democracy under threat, the stakes are high. When we stand up for our democratic values, we are not only doing what is right, we are safeguarding our own future, for we know that accountable governance is the foundation for a safer, greener, healthier and more prosperous world. Although public support for democracy remains strong, as has been mentioned, over the last 20 years, the world has, overall, become less democratic. Today, more than seven in 10 people around the world live in autocracies, and democracy is under pressure from climate change, conflict and irregular migration, among many other factors. Even long-established democracies like our own are affected. That is why in the UK we continue to work with partners at home and abroad to ensure that democratic principles remain strong.
We need to maintain public trust and support for democracy by showing that democratic Governments can meet today’s challenges and deliver for their citizens. We must address the threats posed by countries such as Russia that are working to undermine democratic systems and values in the UK and around the world. We must also support our partners where the shoots of democracy are still growing to defend the space for civil society, uphold the rule of law, champion equal rights, support accountable, inclusive institutions, and tackle global challenges such as dirty money and corruption.
The Government have already taken big steps to strengthen democracy at home. As has been mentioned, we are giving 16-year-olds the right to vote in UK elections—a major change that will boost young people’s trust in democracy. We are making sure that eligible voters are not prevented or deterred from voting by permitting the use of UK-issued bank cards as an accepted form of ID at polling stations. We are introducing tougher rules on political donations, striking the right balance between safeguarding against foreign interference and making sure that legitimate donors can continue to fund electoral campaigns.
We are also empowering the Electoral Commission to clamp down on those who breach political finance rules, with fines of up to half a million pounds, and there will be tougher sentences for those who abuse election campaigners, or elected representatives or their staff. Our commitment to give more decision-making power, funding and tools to local leaders and mayors in England will enable them to effectively address local needs, drive growth and improve public services.
Alongside our efforts to strengthen democracy at home, we must protect ourselves from those overseas who do not share our values. The defending democracy taskforce, chaired by the Minister for Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), is leading a whole-of-society effort to protect the integrity of British democracy. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been stepping up its efforts to expose those who manipulate information, interfere with our democratic processes and institutions, or undermine the rights, freedoms and security of our citizens.
The international nature of the threats requires an international response. We are working through partnerships such as Five Eyes and the G7 to share expertise and take co-ordinated measures against actions by states such as Russia, China and Iran. Last month, the UK and our G7 partners condemned the latest round of arrest warrants and bounties issued by the Hong Kong police as acts of transnational repression. In July, we exposed and sanctioned the Russian interference agency African Initiative for its role in malign influence operations across Africa.
It is equally important to nurture and support democratic government around the world. We are delivering on that commitment through our extensive diplomatic and development partnerships. The UK supports elections, Parliaments and political parties in over 30 countries through our arms-length body, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I have heard the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and I am more than happy to engage with the WFD governors and ensure that FCDO officials do too. Election observation remains an essential part of the UK’s support for free and fair elections. This year and last year, we sent more than 160 observers to watch votes around the world, including in Moldova, Georgia and Uzbekistan.
Freedom of expression and a free media are the bedrock of a healthy democracy, empowering citizens to hold institutions to account. However, as the persecution of Jimmy Lai demonstrates, in many parts of the world the freedom of the media is under threat. The UK is one of the most significant champions of international media freedom. Our support for the BBC World Service brings impartial, accurate news to 320 million people around the world, in 42 languages, every week. It remains the world’s most trusted international news service.
Illicit finance and corruption are transnational challenges, undermining growth and democratic governance, and fuelling organised crime and conflict. We are strengthening our domestic defences and stepping up efforts internationally to ensure that dirty money has nowhere to hide. In April, we sanctioned the cronies of corrupt leaders who are undermining democracy and the rule of law in Georgia and Guatemala.
It is unacceptable that in the UK and around the world, women face barriers to participation in politics and are increasingly exposed to abuse and threats. Our special envoy for women and girls, my noble Friend Baroness Harman, is championing gender equality worldwide and co-ordinating international efforts to ensure that women and girls are empowered and their rights are protected. I am sure that Members from across this House can agree that there is no more powerful advocate for ensuring that women and girls are able to take part in our democratic processes.
To briefly answer the point from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)—having spent many years myself not always getting answers as an Opposition Member—I understand more than most Members of this House the importance of the Commonwealth, having served on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK and international for years. I can assure the hon. Member that the Government recognise the importance of the Commonwealth, and we are working with the new secretary-general. I give him the assurance that we will continue to do that work.
This Government are working to protect and strengthen democracy internationally because it is the right thing to do and is clearly in our national interest.
Chris Elmore
I am running out of time.
A world where rights are respected and states are well governed is a more peaceful world—one where Britain and our partners will be more secure and prosperous. We are working flat out to achieve that goal.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I am delighted that the Minister has broken his vow of silence. I call Rachel Blake to sum up.
Rachel Blake
Thank you, Sir John, for bringing us together for this important debate. I put on record my thanks to everybody who has joined us in the Public Gallery to listen to this debate. What better demonstration of how democracy is alive and well than that people will come out on a Tuesday morning to listen to a debate about the International Day of Democracy.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for talking about lobbying rules and the risks of revolving doors; to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who talked about the importance of free speech; to the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), who discussed electoral reform; to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, who talked about the important role of women in politics; to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for talking about the vital contributions of local communities; to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for discussing the rise of disinformation and authoritarianism; to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for a powerful discussion about how democracy must be nurtured; to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for a powerful tribute to free speech; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for talking about how important it is to have these respectful debates.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) about the values of democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) gave a powerful discussion of electoral reform. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) talked about the Windsor framework. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) talked about how we can overcome division by investing in the social contract. Finally, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked about the vital role of international support for contribution, while the Opposition spokes- person, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), discussed support for the Commonwealth in his contribution. I also welcome the Minister’s remarks.
In this debate, we have heard about the scale and complexity of the challenge that we face. We have all been sobered by the rise of disinformation and authoritarianism. We have been able to discuss the terrible political violence that occurred in America last week, and able to discuss the importance of investing in the social contract and overcoming some of the barriers in order to have confidence in democracy.
Democracy means a stake in one’s community, a stake in the rules, and a stake in all our futures. In this debate, we have seen how democracy helps us to disagree. I agree with much of what was said and disagree with some remarks, but this debate has given us a chance to come together and discuss. I imagine that every hon. Member in this Chamber has lost an election. I might be unusual among politicians to think that, every once in a while, such losses are an important opportunity to learn lessons about how we conduct ourselves going forward. Through that process, we have all learned how to be better politicians—one example of how disagreeing respectfully is an important part of democracy.
We have learned that freedom of speech and expression is not the preserve of the right or the left, but a foundational principle in our democracy, and one that I know we will all defend. I finish by saying that there is hope. Every day, communities in the UK and internationally are organising and influencing their democracy and the decisions made by their leaders, at some level or another. There is hope in investing to tackle the cost of living crisis and investing in the social contract, and hope in the international support for the release of my constituent, Jimmy Lai.
I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks, and the confidence he has given about the Government’s commitment to espousing democratic values and supporting democracy internationally. I am grateful, too, for your chairship, Sir John.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the International Day of Democracy.