Regional Accents and Social Mobility

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you very much, Sir Roger, for giving me the chance to participate. I thank the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), my cousin from across the sea—or across the shuck, as we would say back in Northern Ireland—for highlighting this issue. It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate.

When I first came here, there was a time in our friendship, Sir Roger—I have learned to value your advice on many things—when you would have said, “What’s that boy saying?” You never said it to offend, of course, but you might have asked yourself that question.

When we talk about diversity, inclusion and breaking down barriers to social mobility in the country, we rightly talk about race, gender, background and socioeconomic status. But, as the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton said, there is a silent, pervasive form of prejudice that remains entirely socially acceptable in corporate boardrooms, academic institutions and possibly the very corridors of power in this place. I am talking about accentism. I have a very clear accent. I think it is normal, but when I came over here I realised that I might be the only one with it. People’s intelligence, competence and worth can be judged entirely on how they sound.

I will give an example. I was saying to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) that when I asked a question in the Adjournment debate one night, the Minister said, “That’s a great question. I’ll come back to you with the answer.” I just thought that was what she meant; I never had any reason to think otherwise. She happened to meet one of my colleagues, David Simpson, who used to be an MP, and she said, “Jim asked me a question in the Chamber the other night. I have no idea what he said, so I just told him that I would come back to him with a written response.” That illustrates that, in the early days, it took a wee bit longer for people to understand.

I stand here today as a proud son of County Down, and I speak with the voice of my constituency. All my constituents can understand it—I suppose that is the important thing. It is a voice heavily shaped by our rich Ulster Scots linguistic heritage. To me and the people of Strangford and Northern Ireland, it is the language of our hearts, our history and our homes. It is a dialect full of warmth, character and deep-rooted culture. But if we step outside Northern Ireland, that same voice is too often treated as a barrier. I speak not for me but for some of my constituents who have come here for university or to seek employment.

Studies into accent bias, such as the landmark “Speaking Up” report by the Sutton Trust, have shown that regional working-class accents, including those from Northern Ireland, are consistently ranked lower for prestige and perceived professional capability than received pronunciation or standard BBC English. I remember, at school as a young boy, my earliest words were in Ulster Scots. Education was different at that time. Whenever a child said something wrong, the teacher, Mr Whisker, would say, “That’s not proper English.” I would say, “Those are the words my granny and mum use.” In those days, a child would get a clip round the ear for that. That is not a criticism; it did not do me any harm. Teaching was done in a different way.

Young people from my constituency, who travel across the water and study at top universities or apply for corporate roles in London, are routinely told—sometimes subtly, sometimes brutally—that they need to soften their accents if they want to be taken seriously. That it is a damning indictment of our social mobility framework. Why should a young person have to trade away their identity just to get a foot on the career ladder?

We speak pretty fast in Northern Ireland, and the speed of words may be part of the problem. Kate Hoey, the former Member for Vauxhall, said, “Jim Shannon gets more words to the minute than any other MP.” In all honesty, she told me that and I took it as a compliment, which I am sure it was. The fact is we do talk a wee bit fast. The House will know I am not a man who is shy about speaking up for his constituents. I mention Strangford almost as many times as the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentions Harlow.

I make it a point of principle to participate in as many debates, urgent questions and statements as I humanly can. I have lost count of the number of times the brilliant and hard-working staff from Hansard have had to chase me—down the corridor sometimes—saying, “Mr Shannon, have you got a wee minute, please? Could you send me your notes? Who was that person you mentioned? Where was that place? Will you spell it, please?” They do it for urgent clarification of names, towns or specific phrases I have used in a debate. I say that with the utmost fondness and kindness to the Hansard staff, who are incredibly understanding. I respect all of them for doing a heroic job. I know they go the extra mile for me to ensure that everything is correct.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

This is a serious issue—we must ensure that people are not disadvantaged for any type of accent—but does my hon. Friend agree there is sometimes a humorous side, as we saw this week in the European Parliament? A Sinn Féin MEP complained that they were not allowed to speak in Irish. When the chair reminded him that they could, the MEP replied that he was not prepared, so he would speak in English instead. It can be humorous—even if slightly embarrassing at times.

[Jim Shannon]

It certainly is. I appreciate that intervention from my hon. Friend and colleague.

The Hansard staff do a heroic job. They are always happy to write down the names of my local farmers, community groups and townlands such as Ballywalter—which we know as Whitkirk—or Kircubbin. Last week, I got a wee message, “Could you spell your sons’ names, please?” That perfectly illustrates the point of this debate, and the centre and core of what the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton had to say. If a Member of Parliament, with more than two decades of public service, still faces hurdles to be understood because of his or her regional tongue, what hope does a 21-year-old graduate from a working-class Ulster-Scots background have when trying to navigate an interview panel of elites? How challenging and hard could that be?

One of my favourite stories dates back to when my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I served on the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is again about the accent being hard to understand. I had an American guest for a meal in the dining room there. The lady, an English professor at a prestigious American university, was really interested in Ulster Scots words and accent. We were served by a young boy I knew and had probably grown up with in Ballywalter—or Whitkirk. I chatted with him and asked after his mum and dad, as you do in small talk. That lovely, intelligent lady from Philadelphia leaned over to Naomi, my private secretary, and said, “That’s wonderful. Jim is speaking in Ulster Scots.” Naomi replied, “No, he always speaks like that.” Again, that is an illustration of this. It was not really Ulster Scots; it was the way I talked. That is how we speak, and although that story may be humorous in a way, it highlights the issues that an accent can bring.

I will come back to the seriousness of this issue and why it is important. When someone constantly has to repeat themselves, is met with blank stares—nobody is ignoring them; sometimes they just do not follow—or is asked, “Could you maybe say that again?” or “Speak more clearly, if possible,” it chips away at their confidence. The hon. Members for Leigh and Atherton and for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) both referred to that; it is a key issue. That breeds a form of imposter syndrome that tells our young people that they do not belong in high-flying professions, and it pushes them out of the rooms where decisions are made, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South said. Linguistic diversity is the ultimate sign of a rich and vibrant democracy. We should be celebrating the fact that the United Kingdom is a tapestry of different voices, dialects and accents. That enriches us all, and there are some people in this room—I am thinking of one in particular, and he knows who he is—whose accents I love listening to. I just love it when some other MPs, such as the Plaid Cymru Members, speak. Their voices and their words are almost like singing in the way they come over. There are also the Scotsmen. Angus MacNeil—I can use his name, because he is no longer a Member—was speaking one day in the Chamber, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry said to me, “Do you understand him?” I said, “I understand every word he said,” and he said, “I suppose you probably would.” Angus speaks fast; his words were at a rate similar to my own. That example underlines the issue.

What do we need? We need employers, universities and civil services to actively train interviewers to look past the phonetic wrapper and focus purely on the substance of what has been said. I will conclude with an Ulster Scots phrase for Members to work out—it will be a challenge, of course. Keep ‘er lit!

Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers]

I can see the Minister nodding; no doubt he will confirm that later.

On our trip to the airport, the concerns about Spanish officials operating on the Rock were, to some extent, assuaged. I was delighted that we were able to receive reassurance from not just the Chief Minister but his senior officials who accompanied us on the tour of the airport. I know there have been certain concerns about Spanish officials, police and the like operating within British territory, but the arrangements that have been made mean that, to a great extent, our fears can be assuaged.

Next we visited the commander at the British base. He assured us that there is co-operation with the Spanish authorities, which is only beneficial to both sides. There is no interference in the operations of the base, and the military is content with the arrangements. The American navy had been in the port only a day or two before our visit. It was encouraging, particularly in view of the current world situation and some of the noises coming from the American Administration, that work and co-operation are continuing at a purely operational level.

There was one visit on which we heard some discontent. We walked along Main Street and called in to see a number of retailers, purely at random, and they raised some concerns. As we know, the retail sector is struggling in many countries, and Gibraltar is no exception. Interestingly enough, one of the shops we went into dealt in ceramics, and the owner imported most of his products from the UK. He pointed out that because of various impositions on the ceramics sector, the costs were rising in the UK so much that it was becoming unprofitable to operate. With the proposed taxation arrangements in Gibraltar affecting retailers, he was going to cease operations in the not-too-distant future after being in business for about 25 years. It was very sad to hear that. But on the whole, although many of the retailers were not particularly happy, they recognised the overall benefits to Gibraltar of the operations.

I have mentioned the concerns about security and so on. One of our meetings was with the chief commissioner of the police, who recognised that there are a number of issues that need what he described as “further consideration”. Having said that, when we left the meeting we felt that, on the whole, his concerns could be worked through. I am sure the Minister is well aware of them, but I would be more than happy to discuss them with him if that would be beneficial.

We then had a lunchtime meeting with the Chief Minister, the Attorney General and the Health, Care and Business Minister. It is important to stress that we had full co-operation from the Chief Minister and his Ministers during our visit, bearing in mind that we had no official standing and were merely there as representatives of the all-party group. I want to put on the record our sincere thanks to the Gibraltar representative for assisting us in making the arrangements for the visit.

In the course of the lunch with the Chief Minister, once we had dealt with the routine matters we were there to discuss, we had a very useful political discussion. It is always interesting to hear an outside politician’s views of what is happening over here in the UK. I am not entirely sure what they would make of it today, but a couple of months ago we had a fascinating discussion, mainly about whether there were concerns about the treaty across the political spectrum here in the UK. We were able to give reassurance, based on the meetings we had and knowing the views of colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group, that there would be all-party support from Westminster.

According to the report we put together, we discussed the evolving UK-EU relationship, and on the whole the direction of travel was greatly supported. We also discussed a number of the issues that were causing concern, including—if I can remember the ins and outs of it—people taking advantage of the arrangements that were being put in place. It is probably not something we need to cover today, but it is worth recording that there were some concerns about people trying to take advantage of the health services provided in Gibraltar. We also had a constructive meeting with the vice-chancellor of the university, whom we had met on previous occasions. It was interesting to receive an update on how things were progressing there.

We had an interesting meeting with Keith Azopardi, the leader of the opposition in Gibraltar, because we wanted to ensure that we received views on the treaty from across the political spectrum. He pointed out that the opposition had imposed a number of red lines in their discussions, but as Members will know, the draft treaty was eventually approved unanimously by the Gibraltarian Parliament. The leader of the opposition quite understandably pointed out his party’s concerns. As opposition parties do, it obviously wanted to carve out a position whereby if something went wrong, he would be able to say, “I told you so.” I can see Government Members smiling at that, because they have been in opposition—my party is in opposition now, and the shadow minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), may point out one or two of our concerns in that respect.

Mr Azopardi expressed genuine concerns but—he will probably not thank me for saying this—in all honesty I think he was struggling to find reasons why he would have been tempted to vote against the treaty. It is important to recognise that political parties across Gibraltar have supported the treaty and feel on balance that it would be beneficial for it to be ratified.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. He mentioned cross-party support; does he agree that, as far as we are able to ascertain, the people of Gibraltar are glad that there is cross-party support for their position in this House, and that we must try to maintain that to ensure the safety and security of the people on the Rock of Gibraltar?

[Martin Vickers]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Following our meeting with the leader of the opposition, we met with Eva Wallace, who is a store manager at Morrisons. Those who know Gibraltar well will know that Morrisons is not just a key part of the retail scene there but a big business operation. Ms Wallace outlined what she described as the significant complexities that arose following Brexit, and the different but equally substantial complexities—such as labelling requirements—that will follow the treaty’s implementation. She pointed out that there would certainly be a reduction in the range of stock the store could offer. Having said that, it currently carries 20,000 different products, so I suspect most customers will not notice if that goes down to 17,000 or 18,000. Morrisons does business with Morocco, from where it gets tomatoes, and there had been problems with labelling. The store has a loyal customer base in Gibraltar, but felt that the ease of crossing the border would increase the footfall coming from Spain, for which bus trips were being arranged. The business is well established there and knows how to continue and hopefully increase footfall.

The university vice-chancellor referred to the new immigration rules, and we noted in our report that the university would closely assess their impact on its attractiveness to prospective students from around the world. Research funding had been difficult to secure since Brexit, and the vice-Chancellor hoped that that might ease with the conclusion of the treaty.

I will draw my comments to a close and allow other Members to take part. On balance, we came away with the overwhelming view that the treaty negotiations had been a success and that the final version of the treaty should be approved. It has cross-party support in Gibraltar and it would be regrettable if that were not reflected here at Westminster. I am interested to hear contributions from other Members. Having in a sense imposed problems on Gibraltar as a result of our leaving the EU, it is important that we have reached a satisfactory conclusion. We should congratulate our negotiating team, and the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister and their colleagues in Gibraltar. I know from several visits over recent years that they have worked tirelessly to achieve the treaty, which is, on balance, welcome. I hope that, as it passes through the various stages in Westminster, we are able to finalise it in the very near future.

UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. We meet at a moment when the global aid system is under extraordinary pressure. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this incredibly important debate.

Current projections suggest that cuts to international aid could contribute to as many as 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million children under the age of five. That is the human cost of dismantling the world aid architecture at speed.

The United Kingdom is not alone in reducing aid spending—the United States, France, Germany and Canada are all scaling back their commitments—but that does not make our choices less significant; it makes them more significant. When every major donor retreats at the same time, there is no one left to step into the gap, and yet the challenges we face today do not stop at national borders. Conflict, climate change, forced displacement, pandemics and antimicrobial resistance affect us all. Investment overseas is increasingly an investment in our own security and prosperity here at home.

Global health provides perhaps the clearest example of why this matters. Viruses do not stop at passport control. The first line of defence against the next pandemic is not at Heathrow or Dover, it is in strong public health systems thousands of miles away. Our national health service and the health security of people across Britain depend on a global health system that works effectively for everyone.

That is why I welcome aspects of the Government’s approach. I welcome the decision to provide protection for key multilateral health organisations, and I am proud that the UK has made ambitious commitments to the Global Fund and to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance—institutions with a proven ability to deliver vaccines at scale and to reach communities that fragmented programmes often cannot.

The Government are also right to recognise that countries want autonomy, not dependency, and that our role should be to help to build resilient health systems that countries themselves can sustain and own. That is the right long-term objective.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Member agree that one of the most cost-effective ways of helping, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, is to allow local people to avail themselves of clean drinking water, which can transform lives?

[Dr Cooper]

I agree 100%. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) has already talked about his role in the water, sanitation and hygiene all-party parliamentary group. Access to water is an absolutely essential health determinant.

Partnership and resilience building are incredibly important, but they cannot be the whole answer. A strategy designed to strengthen systems over many years does little for a clinic that is closing next month. Communities facing the loss of essential services are not reassured by a long-term theory of change, much as we love that in the development arena. They are worried about whether medicines will be available, whether healthcare workers will be paid and whether the lights will stay on. Withdrawal is fast, capacity building is slow, and people are falling through that gap.

That is why, to be honest, the decision to withdraw support from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and the Pandemic Fund is really quite disappointing. The Government’s own impact assessment warns that these choices increase the risk of disease outbreaks. We are closer than ever to eradicating polio, a disease that has blighted generations of children, and yet, potentially because of cuts to official development assistance, we are stepping back from that goal. I urge us not to.

I am equally concerned about the dismantling of the Fleming Fund. Antimicrobial resistance may sound a little abstract, but it is not a distant or theoretical threat. Just ask anybody what they think will happen if their antibiotics do not work when they need them. It is one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face. The effectiveness of antibiotics underpins modern medicine and protects countless lives every day. Our NHS depends on those medicines continuing to work. Recent outbreaks of serious infectious diseases remind us just how much rests upon them.

As we have just been reminded, health does not exist in isolation. Clean water, good nutrition and quality education are health interventions by another name. For example, children whose mothers have received a secondary education are far more likely to be fully vaccinated. Although I welcome the prioritisation of healthcare spending, we cannot ignore the reality that in practice many of the programmes being cut are health programmes, too.

Nowhere is that more evident than in Africa. The continent bears about a quarter of the world’s disease burden while possessing only 3% of the global health workforce, yet bilateral aid to Africa is facing a 56% reduction—the steepest regional cut across the entire ODA budget. Multilateral institutions will of course continue to play an essential role, but we should not be so naive as to believe that they can absorb cuts of that scale without consequences.

The consequences are already becoming clear. In Malawi, an estimated 250,000 adolescents could lose access to family planning services each year. In Somalia, fewer women, girls and boys will be able to access lifesaving healthcare because of these decisions. Behind every statistic is a human being whose opportunities, health and future are being diminished.

There is also a broader question of fairness. The NHS benefits enormously from healthcare workers who trained overseas before coming here to serve patients across the United Kingdom, which we sometimes forget in our conversations about immigration. It has been estimated that the UK has saved about £14 billion by relying on health professionals educated and trained elsewhere, and many of the countries from which those workers come are themselves grappling with fragile and understaffed health systems. That is not a windfall; it creates a responsibility. We have a duty to invest back into the health systems from which we have drawn so much expertise, not to withdraw support at the very moment that those systems are under increasing strain.

The lessons of Ebola, covid-19 and antimicrobial resistance are ultimately the same: we cannot isolate ourselves from global threats, and the cheapest crisis is the one that we prevent. Ministers have described these decisions as exceptional measures taken in difficult fiscal circumstances. I recognise those pressures, but we have a responsibility to keep people safe, including people here in the United Kingdom. We are weakening the protection of some of the world’s most vulnerable communities, and in doing so we are undermining our own health security here in Britain. For those reasons, I urge my Government to look again. We need a credible, serious and urgent plan to restore aid spending, not only because it is the right thing to do but because it is in our national interest.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of the G20 summit, not only this year but when the UK is hosting from January. I can confirm that tackling structural imbalances, future industries, open trade and reforming global economic systems to support developing countries will be our focus as we move into chairing the G20. He is right that this is a crucial moment for the United Kingdom. The FCDO will play an important part co-ordinating the work across Government, via the Cabinet Office.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in recommending that people visit the “06:29AM—The Moment Music Stood Still” exhibition that I and colleagues visited this morning in London, which shows examples of what happened on 7 October, so that we may all get more rounded information on why there is such a scale of horrendous murder in Israel and the middle east more generally?

[Yvette Cooper]

We continue to condemn the horrendous attacks on 7 October, which were an act of the most barbaric terrorism by Hamas and left deep scars for families who lost loved ones. Huge trauma was instigated as a result and it was the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust. We remember with sadness all those who lost their lives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has met the Yemeni Prime Minister in recent days, to engage with the Yemenis, to express our support and to ensure that they can address humanitarian issues. There is obviously a particular issue with Yemen, where Iranian proxies have been mobilised in the past, and it is important that does not happen now. It is another example of how vulnerable, low-income and conflict-affected countries are the most heavily affected by the restrictions on the Gulf and the strait of Hormuz.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The Foreign Secretary’s push for consensus is to be welcomed. Hopefully, the strait of Hormuz will be open shortly, which will lead to short and medium-term progress. In the longer term, does the Foreign Secretary agree that a lasting peace in the middle east will be more easily secured if we can take action against neighbouring states and elements within those states that threaten the absolute annihilation of the state of Israel?

[Yvette Cooper]

Israel’s security needs to be protected, and so does the security of Gulf countries that have been attacked as part of this conflict. We need security right across the region. The hon. Gentleman says that we hope the strait will soon be open. We have proposed that, as an immediate confidence-building measure, the Iranians should agree to the International Maritime Organisation’s proposal to start moving the stranded ships and the stranded seafarers. It could get on with that right now, even while negotiations are continuing. We need to get those ships moving and those seafarers home. That is what the IMO has proposed, and we have been building international support to pursue that as an immediate step.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. We are clear that no company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain. We work with our partners to promote the role that new technologies can play in reducing forced labour risks in supply chains. That includes developing an interactive tool to identify child labour risks in agricultural commodity supply chains, using satellite data to improve working conditions in south Asia’s brick industry, and creating AI-powered chatbots that can provide vulnerable workers with rights-based guidance.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Will the Minister have discussions with some of the large retail chains in which we often see occasions of misuse of labour in overseas territories, particularly in Africa and the far east?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. He will be aware that we believe that no company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain. He may also be aware that in the trade strategy, the Government launched a review of their approach to responsible business conduct policy. It is important that we continue to work together to ensure that we eradicate modern slavery from any of our supply chains.

UNESCO: 80th Anniversary

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Davies]

The right hon. Lady makes a good point. There are challenges associated with cultural landscapes and living sites, but there are many examples of where we can make that work. Having a national strategy would provide a shared view across Government Departments to best support the sites. I will say something later about the specific site she mentioned.

I was pleased to re-establish the APPG, which we can use to help build the components for a national strategy, share good practice for sites across the UK, and track and influence Government legislation, so that we can harness all the benefits those sites offer. Having a national strategy would also foster a shared understanding of the challenges and opportunities faced by the range of sites across the UK, allowing a joined-up approach to dealing with them. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the merits of a national strategy for the UNESCO world heritage sites in the UK, and whether the Government might consider following the Republic of Ireland, which has adopted one with a degree of success.

I was pleased to see in the recently published curriculum review an aspiration for all young people to engage with local history as part of their education. UNESCO’s world heritage sites in the UK are a great asset to help deliver that. UNESCO is so much more than world heritage sites; it deals with the foundations of our knowledge of the world and each other. UNESCO’s designations, which include biosphere reserves, global geoparks, creative cities, learning cities and intangible cultural heritage, reflect that breadth. Every UNESCO designation is part of a global network spanning more than 190 countries. That network connects communities, scientists, cultural organisations and educators with their counterparts across the world. Despite that extraordinary breadth, UNESCO remains united by a single purpose: an ambitious, internationalist commitment to freedom, peace and equality, with education at its heart.

When war tore across Ukraine, UNESCO trained 50,000 Ukrainian teachers in online methods, ensuring that a generation of children did not lose their education, despite Russia’s brutal invasion. UNESCO’s Global Education Coalition has championed girls’ education, literacy for women and the principle that talent, not geography or sex, should determine a child’s future. UNESCO’s scientific achievements are truly inspiring. In 1951, it brought together Governments in Paris to develop the first resolution that led directly to the creation of CERN, helping to transform the same scientific disciplines once used for destruction into one of the world’s greatest symbols of international collaboration. More recently, through its Nippon Foundation partnership, nearly 30% of the ocean floor has now been mapped, revealing insights into our climate and marine life.

In the realm of culture, UNESCO’s mission has surpassed preservation and now involves conservation and even reconstruction. The Revive the Spirit of Mosul initiative secured more than $117 million to restore mosques and heritage lost to war, rebuilding not just structures but the collective memory and sense of belonging that they embody. This is UNESCO at its strongest—not lofty ideals, but tangible actions that promote peace. It represents the very best of our collective endeavours as one human race.

Britain’s UNESCO sites also bring money into our communities at a time when it is hard to come by, through tourism and footfall, new business opportunities and local economic growth, and direct funding, both public and private. One of the most significant sources of funding is the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which has been supporting British heritage since 1994. Today I am delighted to report that, for the first time, National Lottery heritage funding into British UNESCO sites has surpassed £1 billion. I know the Minister will want to join me in celebrating that amazing milestone. I want to cite just a few examples of where that money has contributed in every nation of the United Kingdom.

Over £22 million has come into the Derwent valley, including £9.5 million for Derby’s Museum of Making, which was opened in 2020 and co-designed with local people. It reconnects communities across Derbyshire and further afield with our industrial heritage—something we have only come to appreciate more in recent years.

The National Lottery Heritage Fund has provided £12 million to the National Slate Museum in Llanberis. The slate landscape of north Wales, where quarries, mines and communities evolved together, remains a stronghold of the Welsh language and identity. That funding has created a learning centre, play area, shop, café and improved accessibility, ensuring everyone can share in that wonderful heritage.

In the Wester Ross Biosphere in the north-west highlands, £750,000 of funding supported the Inverbroom estate’s transformation from a traditional highland estate into a beacon of nature and recovery. That created jobs and opened a path to a sustainable future where Scotland’s natural heritage thrives alongside its communities. And in Northern Ireland, £3 million helped the Giant’s Causeway community build a world-class visitor centre.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would turn to the Giant’s Causeway UNESCO world heritage site. Does he agree that that is one of the nation’s tremendous tourism facilities, but we have to be very careful with it, because there have been attempts by developers in recent years to put offshore wind farms in immediate proximity to it? We must be extremely cautious about proceeding with developments of that nature in such close proximity to a national heritage site.

[Jonathan Davies]

That is a challenge. A few sites, including the one in my constituency, have a buffer zone in which development must be tightly controlled. We need to get more energy from renewables, but there is a balance to be struck at valuable sites such as the Giant’s Causeway, which welcomes hundreds of thousands of people each year and shows how funding heritage can protect natural wonders while opening them up for all to enjoy.

Across every nation and region, in so many different ways, UNESCO sites are a locus for communities to celebrate their culture, understand their history and prepare for the future. Aside from the numerous benefits they provide, our UNESCO sites have the potential to help us tackle two key challenges.

First, too many people feel disconnected and alienated. That is expressed through frustration, but also a turn to extremes. UNESCO sites do not provide quick fixes and nor are they the sole solution, but by investing in what is unique, sustainable and culturally valuable in our towns, cities and landscapes we restore a sense of connection, allow a palpable sense of local identity to return, and give communities a real stake in their future. That must be recognised as part of the national renewal that the Government rightly seek. It goes beyond our pride in place programme and engages with what our places mean to us, as well as how they look.

The second challenge is our role on the world stage. I am delighted that we have a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister responding to the debate. Although trade deals have boosted UK business and our defence investment is helping build a more secure world, cuts to international aid have raised concerns about our global standing. UNESCO offers a powerful vehicle for leading on the international stage, fostering progress and promoting peace. Its work can prevent conflict from erupting, help adversaries to see one another’s humanity, and encourage reconciliation after war. That is not to mention the work needed to tackle climate change, which is an ever growing cause of conflict across the world. We are leading on climate change through robust action in the UK, but our collective efforts can succeed only if they are fully international. Domestic alienation and international conflict are two sides of the same coin; UNESCO’s mission helps us to address both.

The UK is home to some of the world’s most respected minds in science, culture and education. Their expertise enriches UNESCO through research, conservation, diplomacy and teaching. The UK is home to 29 UNESCO chairs—world-leading experts advancing research on climate change, cultural heritage, artificial intelligence ethics, ocean science and education. Their work directly shapes global policy and drives innovation. Greater engagement with UNESCO, nationally and internationally, is a low-cost, high-impact way to tackle two defining challenges of our age. Done well, it can restore pride in place at home and pride in the UK’s role abroad.

I very much look forward to hearing from colleagues about the fantastic contributions that UNESCO sites make across the country. We have the resources to contribute through UNESCO to peace, equality and a better future for humankind. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister not only a celebration of this important organisation, but a recommitment to our place within it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing the debate.

We will hear a lot today about UNESCO world heritage sites across the UK, from the Giant’s Causeway to Saltaire and the Palace of Westminster itself. Magnificent as those examples are, I stand here today with the honour of representing the only part of the country with double UNESCO world heritage status for both cultural heritage and the surrounding natural environment. St Kilda, or Hiort, the remote archipelago, some 40 miles west of my own archipelago into the Atlantic, are the most westernmost islands of the UK apart from Rockall—perhaps its most taciturn Atlantic outcrop. It is not easy to get there—it takes a stern four-hour crossing on a high-powered boat into an Atlantic swell—but the reward is magnificent.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

And that is in summer.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Even in the summer.

The sea cliffs of St Kilda are among the highest in the UK. When you crane your neck up from the deck of what feels like a very small boat below those cliffs, it feels as if someone has dragged New York’s skyscrapers midway across the Atlantic. The sea stacks teem with bird life, giving an otherworldly atmosphere, and the power of that ocean, in summer and winter, below your feet—that relentless swell—makes you feel as if these islands are on the edge of the world. It is the surrounding ocean environment that gives it its UNESCO natural heritage status, but it is the human footprint—the two millennia of human inhabitation of the main island of Hirta, along with Boreray, Soay and Dùn, where people grazed sheep and hunted seabirds—that exert such a pull and give it its heritage status.

People lived there for two millennia, eking out a very tough life harvesting seabirds and breeding sheep, but modernity, contact with the outside world, depopulation, emigration and illness brought that chapter of human habitation to a close. The final 36 St Kildans requested assistance from the British Government and were evacuated on 29 August 1930, bringing that chapter of inhabitation to a sudden and sad end. Although the community dispersed and the voices faded, you still get an echo of the human habitation and the people when you go there. I last visited with the late Norman John Gillies, the last of the male St Kildans. He left when he was five years old, but he still had an umbilical link to the island. To stand with him outside his family home in Village Bay, and to hear him switch from his English Norwich accent into what that place evoked in him—his native Gaelic voice—was to walk across the bridge of time. It was quite a privilege.

The remarkable story of St Kilda has been told and retold, from Tom Steel’s “Life and Death” to Roger Hutchinson’s “A People’s History”. There are about 700 books on St Kilda. We know more about the St Kildans than we know about the kings of Scotland. That is why we go back time and again: because when we walk in their footsteps, we feel for ourselves what it was like to live in a pre-industrial, communal, remote and co-dependent community as our ancestors must all have done.

While St Kilda remains attractive, tourist traffic is increasing vastly. Cruise ships now go there and the light-touch tourism that is essential for UNESCO world heritage sites is hard to achieve. Ionad Hiort, the St Kilda Centre project, aspires to construct a world-class visitor centre in Ùig, on the west coast of Lewis. It would offer visitors an opportunity to encounter St Kilda from afar. UNESCO has adopted the project as an exemplar of remote access to world heritage sites, many of which are already physically inaccessible or fragile.

Funding is formidable, and a £7 million package has been put in place, but prices are increasing as time is flowing, and there is a considerable funding gap. I appeal to the Minister and the UK Government to deploy the muscle of Government to fulfil their obligations not just as a custodian of this double world heritage site, but by using projects such as Ionad Hiort to show the potential of remote viewing, contain untrammelled tourism and breathe new economic life into remote communities like mine. I urge the Department, the Minister and colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to take the proposal seriously, to show how the UK can inform and lead the rest of the world—from the edge of the world—when it comes to world heritage sites.

Official Development Assistance Reductions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Chair of the International Development Committee, because I want to refer to one or two things that the Committee has been doing. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing the debate.

Given that this is a major change in Government policy, there has been very little debate in Parliament about it. I fear, though, that we will not be able to secure an increase in spending unless we can increase public support for development. Those of us who have been committed to development have to concede that we have been complacent in thinking that that support would automatically be there, and that people would see good for what it is. That is not the case. As I think most Members would recognise from their mailbags, when this change was made there was very little public reaction.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The right hon. Member hits on a very important point. There is not much wider public support, for two big reasons: corruption in some of the countries to which aid is going, and the misappropriation of food and other produce that is delivered. Until we address those issues, we will face an uphill battle in getting public support in the UK for more money.

[David Mundell]

That is partly right, because negative stories have prevailed and we have not had people on the other side rebutting them, as we have not had advocates on the ground. I feel that many non-governmental organisations became far too corporate in their approach: they did not have the local people who were able and willing to collect money or to stand up and make the case in their community environments.

The International Development Committee has visited the US, to try to find out what is happening there. One of the great ironies is that—subject to the budget currently being frozen—it looks as though the US cuts will be less than the cuts in the UK, because various interests in the US have pushed back on them. There is no doubt that what is happening in the US will significantly affect the global development structures, and we must react to that. We cannot simply say, “We want to go back to 0.7%, and it will all be all right.” That is not the world we are in.

We will have to demonstrate specific things that the UK can contribute in a leadership capacity. For example, we have heard that the US will not be funding any family-planning activity or LGBT activity, so others will have to step up in a strategic and co-ordinated way. Whether it is our Government, other Governments or philanthropists, we must find a co-ordinated way of doing this.

We must also look at how we can deliver most effectively with the reduced funding that we have. As the hon. Member for Rotherham knows, I have been a strong advocate for nutrition. One of the biggest disappointments to me of late has been that, after the International Development Committee conducted an inquiry into sustainable development goal 2, we received a very, very poor response from the Government. I accept that it took place during a period of change, but there was nothing concrete in the response. In fact, there was less in it than what was said a few months ago at the nutrition for growth summit in Paris.

It seems to me that the Government embarked on these cuts without a strategy. We might disagree with the strategy in the US, but at least there was one: there was a clear objective, and it took certain actions to pursue it. I am not aware of any clear strategy being pursued in the UK.

Finally, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV/AIDS, I want to make a pitch for the Global Fund. The Global Fund has been a huge success in combating HIV and AIDS, and I hope that the Government can proceed with a replenishment of £1 billion. I campaigned against my own Government to get £1 billion last time, and it would be very disappointing to find an incoming Labour Government cutting that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Mother of the House. There are 50,000 dual nationals who live in Jamaica and up to 8,000 British citizens who may be travelling or on holiday there. We have very strong links between our communities—between the people of Jamaica and the people of Britain. That is why I spoke to the Jamaican Foreign Minister yesterday to offer our solidarity and support. I can tell my right hon. Friend that we have not just the rapid deployment of consular staff, but humanitarian staff being pre-positioned in the Caribbean. We discussed this matter in the crisis centre this morning, including what we might be able to deploy on request from the Jamaican Government. We stand ready to help and respond.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Can the Foreign Secretary help with the context of the middle east conflict? I have been endeavouring to establish an independent verifiable number for the rocket attacks into Israel that were carried out in the 12 months before 7 October and the 12 months after 7 October to give some context to what has happened since. Is she able to assist?

International Day of Democracy

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.