International Day of Democracy Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLiz Saville Roberts
Main Page: Liz Saville Roberts (Plaid Cymru - Dwyfor Meirionnydd)Department Debates - View all Liz Saville Roberts's debates with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”