Westminster Hall
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
Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility
(2 days, 6 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
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Third Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, Problem drug use in Scotland follow-up: Glasgow’s Safer Drug Consumption Facility, HC 630, and the Government response, HC 1485.
It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am very grateful to the Liaison Committee for allocating time for this debate on the Government’s response to the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report on the pilot safer drug consumption facility in Glasgow, known as the Thistle.
The Committee began this inquiry in January 2025, amid ongoing concern that Scotland faces the highest rate of drug-related deaths in Europe. In 2024, 1,017 deaths were recorded, alongside harms including blood-borne viruses and injection wounds. Preliminary figures for 2025 suggest that those numbers are increasing. There is a suspected 8% increase in drug deaths in the first nine months of 2025, compared with the same period in 2024. Those deaths and drug-related harms are very much concentrated in Glasgow, although not exclusively so. To address that, Glasgow City Council Health and Social Care Partnership and other partners launched the Thistle. The Thistle is located on Hunter Street in Glasgow’s east end, and it is the first sanctioned UK safer drug consumption room.
In its first 10 months, the Thistle has had 522 unique visitors and has supervised over 6,000 injecting episodes. During this time there were 78 medical emergencies on site. Now, that might sound like a bad thing, but this means that there have been 78 instances where people have received professional medical intervention, which they might not otherwise have received. This medical intervention treats overdoses and potentially saves lives. There have been no fatalities at the Thistle in the year since it opened.
Our Committee heard that, as a single service, the impact of the Thistle is expected to be highly localised. It is unlikely to shift the dial on national drug death figures, and it is not designed to do so.
The question of cost was an ongoing theme throughout the inquiry. The Thistle is being funded by the Scottish Government, and up to £2.3 million per year has been committed for the duration of the three-year pilot. The Thistle is undoubtedly expensive to run. However, evidence suggests that facilities such as the Thistle can provide value for money by generating savings elsewhere in the health service. Such facilities can reduce costs associated with public injecting, including the costs of hospital admissions, ambulance call-outs and treating blood-borne viruses.
Preventing just six to eight cases of HIV annually could potentially generate savings equivalent to the annual cost of the Thistle. It is right that the Thistle’s costs were properly considered in the Committee’s inquiry because it is a gold-standard model. That means that the value-for-money and harm-reduction capability of a less sophisticated model remains untested. However, with over 1,000 deaths in 2024 alone, the Committee is clear that the scale of Scotland’s emergency necessitates a commensurate response and significant investment.
The report also emphasises how vital a drug checking licence would be in combating drug-related harm. We explained how such a licence would allow support services to better understand drug trends across Glasgow, and to take action in relation to them. That could be key in ensuring that the Thistle achieves maximum effectiveness.
We recommended that the Home Office urgently complete its assessment of Glasgow’s application for a drug checking licence at the Thistle, and I was very pleased to see that the application was approved in October last year. With this licence, Glasgow will become the first city in Scotland where people can legally test drugs for dangerous contaminants. We know that applications for further drug-checking facilities in Aberdeen and Dundee have also been submitted to the Home Office, and we await the outcome of those applications.
I will now make some remarks about the impact of the Thistle on the local community, which has quite rightly been the subject of much media reporting. I highlight how our report emphasises the importance of supporting the community surrounding the Thistle. The concerns of the local community must be taken seriously, which is why our report recommended proactive engagement through the community forum and the development of a responsive communication strategy.
Amid the media commentary, we should also bear in mind that it may take time for the local effects of the Thistle to be fully understood. We are reassured that the ongoing independent evaluation is monitoring the levels of discarded paraphernalia, and the pilot’s wider impact on the community. That is vital, and it will ensure that debate about local impacts is informed by accurate, objective data.
In November last year we published the Government’s response to our report. There is some positive messaging in the response, which we welcome, and the Government have said that they are firmly committed to tackling drug-related harms and to working closely and positively with the Scottish Government. The response also noted
“the importance of evidence-based and high-quality treatment, which engages vulnerable people who use drugs.”
Both those points very much align with the spirit of our report.
When it comes to the Thistle itself, however, I must express some disappointment at the substance of the Government’s response. It states that the Government will “welcome any evidence” emerging from the evaluation of the Thistle. However, it also states that the Government have
“no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971”
to permit the operation of such facilities anywhere in the UK. It is difficult to see how full and proper consideration can be given to the Thistle’s evaluation unless the Government are at least open-minded to considering legal changes. As our report says,
“Any intervention found to be effective at saving lives and reducing harm should not be dismissed.”
Experts and evidence, rather than preconceived ideas, should determine the facility’s future.
I directly asked the Prime Minister about this issue during a public session of the Liaison Committee in December. Given the scale of Scotland’s drug crisis, I asked whether he would reconsider the Government’s opposition to amending the law if the Thistle’s evaluation shows it to be effective. He said that the Government had looked at it but does not intend to do so. He also said that legal decisions pertaining to the Thistle are best taken by those in Scotland, and that this should not lead to a UK-wide changing of drugs law. Unfortunately, that response appears not to recognise that drugs law is reserved. In her response to this debate, I hope the Minister will help us to understand how the Government can welcome evidence while remaining closed as to what that evidence might say.
Since the publication of our report, the issues we raised have only become more prescient. Interest has developed in additional safer drug consumption facilities elsewhere in Scotland. In Edinburgh, a feasibility study for a similar facility was undertaken in late 2024. That work confirmed strong local need for a facility, and identified two potential sites in the city. Then, in September 2025, the Edinburgh integration joint board announced plans to launch a formal public consultation early this year as part of developing a business case for a facility.
The Lord Advocate’s current statement of prosecution policy, however, would not cover any other sites. It is specifically worded in such a way that it covers the Thistle facility and nowhere else. That prosecutorial statement indicates that it is not in the public interest to prosecute people at the Thistle.
Our report concludes that relying on separate prosecution policies for multiple facilities is undesirable. If there are to be other safer drug consumption facilities beyond Glasgow, it is even more important that the UK Government address the issues highlighted in our report by establishing a clear legal basis that applies across Scotland. That would require legislation by the UK Government and Parliament.
The issues covered in our report are more relevant now than ever, because drug consumption trends in Scotland are changing rapidly. Inhalation is becoming much more prevalent. We highlight the expert medical advice from Dr Saket Priyadarshi and others that shows that inhalation is a safer method of consumption than injection. Introducing an inhalation space could expand the reach of the Thistle by attracting those who smoke and inhale drugs rather than inject them. Dr Priyadarshi describes how it would reduce the appalling physical harm caused by injecting at wound sites.
The Thistle does not currently have inhalation facilities. Such facilities would be prohibited under both reserved and devolved legislation, most notably Scotland’s smoking ban. Our report makes it clear that, for the Thistle to be effective, it must be able to meet the needs of the population it is trying to help. An inhalation room could therefore be key to maximising the Thistle’s effectiveness, and a fair evaluation of the facility’s full potential efficacy could be inhibited without one.
Since the publication of our report, the Glasgow City integration joint board has announced plans potentially to provide an inhalation space within the Thistle. The board has approved plans to develop a full business case to explore it, and our report calls for any application to enable an inhalation space to be considered by the UK Government on its merits.
In response to our report, the Government said that it “does not support” enabling inhalation. The Government suggest that it would be for the Lord Advocate, rather than the UK Government, to grant an exemption to reserved legislation. I hope the Minister might reflect on the logic that granting exemptions to reserved legislation is best done by the Lord Advocate through prosecutorial discretion rather than by the UK Government, who retain responsibility for drugs law.
I have one further point. The Thistle is already operating, and it may evolve to provide more services in future. Meanwhile, it is becoming increasingly likely that similar facilities may be established elsewhere in Scotland. All of that is happening whether the UK Government approve or not. To a certain extent, that reflects the proper operation of devolution and Scotland’s separate legal system, which enables Scotland to take a different path from the rest of the UK.
However, as our report sets out, it would be undesirable for the Thistle or any other future facility to operate, potentially indefinitely, under the Lord Advocate’s prosecutorial discretion. The UK Government should recognise these realities, and if the Thistle is deemed a success, they should work with the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a full, sustainable legal framework for such facilities. If they do not do so, the Government would be permitting the current unstable legal position to persist. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other Members and the Minister.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and I genuinely mean that in this instance.
Every drug death in Scotland is a tragedy, and the painful reality is that the number of drug deaths remains far too high. The latest figures indicate that 898 people are suspected to have died in the first nine months of 2025. Those are preventable deaths, and the SNP Scottish Government will continue to do everything possible to reduce them. Full figures for 2024 show that there were 1,017 drug-related deaths in Scotland, a decrease of 13%, but I do not think we can take a huge amount of comfort from that, given the trajectory in 2025. It shows that a very stubborn mass of deaths are occurring, and addressing it needs a concerted effort from all stakeholders.
The last Scottish Budget included record funding for the prevention of drug and alcohol misuse, including £13 million for grassroots organisations supporting residential rehabilitation, but drugs law ultimately rests with Westminster. The Misuse of Drugs Act was passed in 1971, and the decades since have shown that the focus solely on criminalisation and a war on drugs is simply not working.
The UK Government have said that they will not make changes to drugs law to pave the way for the creation of more legal drug consumption rooms following the launch of the Thistle’s pilot scheme in Glasgow. The Scottish Affairs Committee recommended that the UK Government should change reserved legislation to create a new legal framework for similar facilities to open in different parts of Scotland, if that were deemed to be desirable, but UK Ministers have advised that they will not accept that recommendation.
In a letter responding to the Committee’s recommendations, the UK Government said they had
“no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971”.
I wonder if the Minister might address that the UK Government may not need to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act, as they could instead pursue mechanisms within the Scotland Act 1998 to allow a section 30 derogation or to devolve elements of the Misuse of Drugs Act to the Scottish Government in a very narrow way. That would be an option for a workaround.
The UK Government’s response confirmed that Westminster does not intend to amend the Act to enable the framework for safer drug consumption facilities to be more widespread in Scotland. It is extremely disappointing that the response confirmed that that is the intention even if the independent evaluation of the Thistle deems the pilot to have been a public health success. The Home Office’s approach effectively places a ceiling on how the Thistle model can further evolve. Reaching a decision in this way, before the pilot concludes, flies in the face of claims that the UK Government are taking an evidence-based approach.
The Scottish Government continue to urge Westminster to work with Scottish Ministers to ensure that the policy development reflects public health evidence rather than creates legal barriers that risk further avoidable deaths. The Thistle pilot in Glasgow is being comprehensively and independently evaluated by a collaborative of academics and institutions, working with health and social care partners. UK Ministers must take evidence into consideration when they reach a position on safer drug consumption facilities, rather than letting emotional dogma or Home Office convention set the policy.
The aims to reduce drug-related deaths from overdoses and to minimise the impact of public injecting on local residents and businesses are central to the ambitions of the Thistle and the stakeholders behind its creation. The Thistle received international recognition following a visit by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, and last month a report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland found that the facility had had a “small but significant” impact on reducing drug deaths.
Crucial is a public health rather than criminal justice approach. The Thistle is staffed by a multidisciplinary team including nurses, psychologists, harm reduction specialists, social workers and other medical staff. Records show that in its first 10 months, the Thistle recorded 9,333 visits from 522 people, 6,366 supervised injection episodes, and staff responding to 78 medical emergencies. There are people alive today who would likely not be with us were it not for the Thistle facility.
The Scottish Government are open to considering well-developed proposals for further facilities, and welcome proposals from other parts of Scotland to establish them. That would have to be done while meeting the criteria set by Scotland’s Lord Advocate and the constraints placed on her by the unyielding stance of the Home Office and its brittle application of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is older than I am. The further development of services to prioritise the further reduction of harms in our communities and premature deaths from drugs should be seen as a shared priority for all legislators in Scotland.
I pay tribute to the Scottish Affairs Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), for the way they have approached this issue, which could easily have descended into a party political mud-slinging session, but in my view never once did.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing this important debate, and all the members of the Scottish Affairs Committee, for producing an excellent, conscientious and very serious report.
Our starting point in these discussions must always be that people suffering from addiction must be treated with compassion. It is our moral obligation to help people who are suffering and to help to remove barriers to support for individuals and communities who are affected by addiction. I see the effect of addiction daily in my seat, including in the Calton, where the safe consumption room is located. I see the huge blight that addiction can cause for individuals, families and communities, especially in Glasgow, which sadly has the highest overdose rate in Scotland. We have a moral obligation to support our communities through the devastating impacts of addiction.
Amazing work is being done in my seat to support people with addiction. I see that in the brilliant work of charities such as Back on the Road in Bridgeton, which is close to the facility and recently had its 25th birthday. I see that, too, in the courageous constituents I meet regularly who have recovered from their addictions.
The Committee heard from Dr Shorter, from Queen’s University Belfast, that addiction can often be exacerbated and caused by poverty, deprivation and trauma. This is fundamentally unjust, and it is our duty to ensure that all individuals, families and communities in our constituencies are supported to prevent and recover from addiction. Fighting poverty is an essential task of all levels of government, and we must ensure that nobody, no matter where they are from, is caught in addiction and unable to escape. We must recognise that tackling addiction needs wraparound support and a holistic approach to tackling poverty, meaning that we need a serious focus on new housing, better transport, improved education and access to jobs. All these things help to create communities that are fruitful with opportunities, which will help people to recover from addiction and to build positive futures.
We must also support children and people who have suffered trauma and consequently suffered with addiction. The Committee heard evidence on this from Dr Shorter. There is a clear link between how we treated children in Scotland historically—which is the subject of the Scottish child abuse inquiry—and outcomes in terms of addiction. I regret to say it, but it is a disgrace that the SNP has cut essential psychiatric and psychological services in Glasgow. Those services are essential to support those with addictions who need treatment for psychiatric and psychological conditions, and to help them in their recovery. All the wider wraparound factors need to be considered alongside safe consumption, to ensure that support for recovery is wraparound and holistic and that individuals, their families and communities can recover and move towards brighter and more fruitful futures.
We owe it to people with drug addiction, and their families, whom we must treat with compassion and try our best to support, to explore new ways of helping with addiction and reducing harm, so I fully support the trial, which is taking place on a sound evidence base. It must of course be evaluated robustly—there is nothing controversial about that.
There is serious talk about expanding the trial to include an inhalation facility. This reflects changing patterns in drug misuse, specifically towards smoking. The timing, so soon after the facility has opened, has come as a surprise to the community, and I can see their point. I am uncomfortable about the proposal—it is a significant change—but I have an open mind. We have to examine every possible way of reducing harm to people who use drugs. Naturally, the proposal must be supported by strong evidence, and the decision-makers need to think about the decision very carefully.
It is essential to listen to and speak to people who have addictions. That is a point that Dr Shorter made to the Committee. Harm reduction will happen only if the people who need the facility trust the facility and the staff in it. It is fair to say that people with addiction are not always treated fairly and justly by the state, and that seriously damages their trust in it.
It is also essential that there is serious listening to the community in the Calton. My constituents are utterly despondent at the increase in used needles and other evidence of drug misuse in the community. I ask anyone: how would it feel to take your four-year-old granddaughter for a walk along a street where there were used needles? My constituents’ legitimate concerns are dismissed as being wrong, dismissed on the basis that issues are long standing, and dismissed as misinformation. None of that is any excuse.
I deplore the condescending approach by the SNP council and Government towards the people I am so privileged to represent. The position is simple: the issues need to be tackled. Part 4 of the Scottish Affairs Committee report addresses this fairly and correctly states that
“the concerns of the local community need to be taken seriously.”
I agree. There needs to be a significant improvement in cleaning up the Calton, in encouraging more people to use the facility, and in active listening to my community.
The SNP has now run Scotland for almost 19 years, yet the drugs crisis has got worse, with terrible rates of drug deaths, which are, shockingly, the highest in Europe. As we head into an election year in Scotland, I hope they will take some responsibility for this situation.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers.
Every single death linked to drugs is a human tragedy, as we have heard from Members who have spoken already. It destroys families, shatters communities and places immense pressure on our health services and the emergency services. In my constituency, we had seven drug-related deaths in the last year for which figures were available. That is 5.4 deaths per 100,000 people. In Glasgow, there are 41.1 deaths per 100,000 people. That shows the scale of the problem in Scotland, but particularly in Glasgow. It means we need a different approach that meets the scale of the problem and the human tragedies that lie behind those numbers.
I commend the work of the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and the way she introduced the debate, and everyone on the Scottish Affairs Committee for their work to understand drug use in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats welcome the work in Scotland to treat drug deaths as a public health issue, notably through the pilot of Glasgow’s safer drug consumption facility, the Thistle. We recognise the complexities of the devolved responsibility and emphasise that matters specific to Glasgow and Scotland are for the Scottish Government to address. However, what happens in Scotland can still offer lessons to all of us across the United Kingdom.
Nationally, we need to move towards treating drug misuse as a health matter. That means moving leadership on drugs policy from the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Care, and investing sustainably in more addiction services and rehabilitation support so that help is available before people take the misstep that costs a life. This approach is reflected in some excellent state and local private provision across the country. I commend the Priory in my Woking constituency, which I visited last year, for its outstanding work on mental health and rehabilitation related to substance misuse. We must bring drug recovery infrastructure into the 21st century. That means more trained professionals, better community support, more housing for people in recovery, and pathways into employment to rebuild hope and dignity.
Patricia Ferguson
One of the things that is advantageous about the Thistle is that it does not exist in a vacuum. It can refer people on to other services such as housing— many of the people being dealt with are homeless, unfortunately—and it can also address mental health issues and send people forward to the requisite services that they need to access. It can also do basic things such as allow people the opportunity to have a shower and get some clean clothes—the basic necessities that the rest of us take for granted. In that way, it does more than just address the relatively straightforward issue of injecting; it also tries to help people with the problems they experience day to day.
Mr Forster
I am a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and we have found the Housing First programme—with which there are some parallels in this debate—very important and useful. As the hon. Lady said, it is not just about tackling drug use; we need to tackle homelessness for housing problems and we need to tackle drug use for drug problems, and we should do so as part of a package of support measures. I hope we can treat both those problems equally and in a comprehensive manner.
We need to lessen the taboos around drug consumption to allow us to tackle the issue in a far more humane way than we have previously as a country. The current system fails too many people. Far too many die when they are in contact with treatment services, and too many families are left grieving following an avoidable loss. Helping people to avoid that fate requires a fresh approach that prioritises health, harm reduction, social support and rehabilitation, as much as law enforcement.
We must recognise that outdated drug laws are no longer protecting people, especially young people, from harm. The reform of cannabis legislation would take power away from criminal gangs, regulate quality and potency, and provide safer access for adults while protecting the young. This pragmatic, evidence-based approach should inform our decisions, and we should learn the lessons from what other countries have done.
Drug-related deaths across our country remain unacceptably high, particularly in Scotland and Glasgow, where the situation requires urgent, radical thinking. We must invest more in treatment, rehabilitation, support labs and services to reduce harm, and promote public health leadership that brings us into the 21st century. Above all, we must honour the lives lost by making the change that prevents others from dying needlessly, by taking the evidence-based approach recommended by the Committee’s report.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank you, Mr Vickers, for chairing the debate, and the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for securing it.
The prevalence of drug deaths and the broader misuse of drugs in Scotland is devastating. The fall in drug deaths in 2024 was welcome, but the figure remains the highest in Europe. Between March and May 2025, drug deaths actually increased by 15%, with statistics showing that people in deprived areas in Scotland are 12 times more likely to die of drug misuse than those in the least deprived areas. We all recognise that this must change.
Nevertheless, the question of how we achieve that is not simple. We are right to reflect on how we reached this situation. The monumental failure of the SNP Scottish Government is apparent. Former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon admitted that her Government had taken their “eye off the ball”. I dare say that turn of phrase vastly understates the scale of the crisis that has gripped individuals and communities in Scotland. When my former colleague, the previous Scottish Conservative leader, put forward his Bill in the Scottish Parliament to address this problem, he said:
“This is a crisis that was made in Scotland, and it is one that can be fixed in Scotland, but not if we do not have willing participants in the Government.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 9 October 2025; c. 106-7.]
I will return to the efforts made by my Conservative colleagues in Holyrood later. However, we believe that approaches to dealing with drug use must go beyond the narrow debate about drug consumption centres.
Let me be clear: both the Conservative party and I respect the independence of the Lord Advocate as the prosecutorial authority in Scotland. The last Government were clear that, provided that power is exercised lawfully, we should not stand in the way. Respect for the institutions that underpin our Union is critical, and I would not desire to undermine them. However, that should not preclude us in this place from criticising decisions made in Scotland or from questioning some of the comments underpinning the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report. That is why the Conservative position on drug consumption rooms in England and Wales is simple: we do not support them. That position was set out transparently when the party was in government, and it is appropriate to continue supporting it now.
It is appropriate to offer clarity on this matter. I understand that was a challenge faced by the Scottish Affairs Committee when questioning the former Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). When she was Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, she produced a report that backed such proposals. As such, it would be interesting to hear from this Minister whether she or the Government believe that these facilities are now appropriate.
The reason for our concern is that the use of drug consumption rooms condones or even encourages illegal drug use. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who is a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, stated:
“I cannot ever support the facilitation of addiction as a way of helping to treat addictions”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 111.]
John Grady
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the key purposes of a consumption room is to reduce harm to people who would, in any event, consume the substances in question? In Glasgow, we have had significant problems with needle-borne viruses, infections and illness, so it is only morally right to help these people, as they struggle with their addictions, to consume in a safe way. Otherwise, people lose their loved ones, their mothers and fathers, and their sons and daughters. It is a question of compassion.
Matt Vickers
I definitely believe that we should be helping people with addictions, but feeding those addictions and allowing the illegal use of drugs is not the way forward. There are many ways in which we should support people with addictions and their families, but we clearly have a fundamental difference of opinion about the role of consumption rooms.
As my colleague on the Committee stated, we can never support the facilitation of addiction as a way to treat addiction. That is alongside the impact of potentially encouraging the continued supply of illicit substances, which invariably happens if there are specific locations at which to consume the products of this trade—a trade that, as we all know, has devastating consequences for our communities. Police Scotland states clearly on its website:
“Drugs can be very dangerous to your health and can kill.
The advice of Police Scotland is simple…There is no ‘safe’ way to take drugs, there is always a risk…The only way of staying safe is to avoid drugs altogether.”
Let me demonstrate why we need an effective police response. The county lines programme—which was started by the previous Government, and which has rightly continued—found a notable impact on drug misuse. Its evaluation, released at the very end of 2025, illustrated that drug misuse hospitalisations decreased by 29% in the exporter areas as a result of the county lines programme, when compared with the control group of areas that receive direct county lines funding. At the same time, the evaluation showed a 15% reduction in drug-related hospitalisations, equivalent to 22 fewer hospitalisations on average per quarter, in the importer forces, which were defined as those police forces most likely to be impacted by spillover effects from the county lines programme. Comparing the data to the 2024 evaluation illustrated that the programme is having a continued and seemingly increasing impact on reducing drug-related hospitalisations. Despite the best intentions of those who work at drug consumption facilities, it is inevitable that those taking the drugs will acquire them by criminal means. When we have targeted police action, the evidence appears to show improved outcomes for those who abuse drugs.
Clearly, enforcement is not and should not be the only approach to the problem. That is why the 10-year drugs plan published by the previous Government set out that any plan needed to be underpinned by enforcement and treatment. I appreciate that it was not focused on Scotland, but I would highlight that the previous Government’s drug strategy saw £532 million of additional funding through to 2024-25 to support improvements in alcohol and drug treatment.
Additionally, the previous Government took steps through their consultation—and we have backed secondary legislation while in opposition—to expand access to naloxone to more healthcare professionals and services. As Members will be well aware, the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill introduced by a former Scottish Conservative leader, Douglas Ross, sought to give those diagnosed with drug and alcohol addiction a statutory right to receive treatment from a relevant professional.
Patricia Ferguson
I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware that naloxone is widely used in Scotland by paramedics and the police. As a councillor on Glasgow city council, I had the opportunity to be trained in its use, and I have a vial of it that I can carry around—fortunately, I have never had to use it.
However, I wanted to make the point to the hon. Member that the main driver for considering a safer drug consumption room in Glasgow was the fact that, in 2015, we had one of the biggest outbreaks of HIV infections ever seen in Europe. That was tracked back to the sharing of needles and the fact that people were injecting. That is what sparked the whole discussion about whether Glasgow needed a safer drug consumption room. So this is not just about the criminality or treating those who are already addicted; it is about preventing those blood-borne viruses, which are so harmful to people in their individual lives, but which also have such a devastating effect on our health services. It is about more than just misusing drugs; it is about a whole-society approach.
Matt Vickers
One drug death is one drug death too many. We agree on that, and we agree on the need to treat people. However, I fundamentally believe that there is a role for enforcement. I do not believe that giving people the ability to take these illegal products, in whatever environment, helps to end that addiction. There are very varied views on that, but I fundamentally do not agree.
The robust and costed provisions set out in the Bill introduced by Douglas Ross are essential if Scotland is to turn around its record on tackling the dangers of drug use by setting out the treatments that would be available, and the data and reporting requirements on the Scottish Government. It would provide a Scottish blueprint for reversing the trends that we have seen over the last decade. It was welcome that the Labour party in Scotland supported that Conservative-proposed recovery Bill to give addicts the treatment they need. Unfortunately, the SNP and the Green party in Scotland failed to back it, which was shameful.
In addition, the Scottish Conservatives have set out robust plans to end the drugs trade behind bars, following significant increases in prison drug consumption over the last couple of years. That would be achieved by installing window grilles, which have been proven to stop drone deliveries, in all prisons, and by investing in drone detection technology, sniffer dogs and X-ray machines. The scope of those proposals shows the variety of approaches needed to tackle drug use.
We know that the Thistle is an expensive experiment. Obviously, we welcome any decrease in drug abuse and drug deaths, but we must ask whether we want our actions to encourage drug use or discourage it. It is right that the Scottish Government take steps to fix this problem, but I am afraid they are not taking the steps that are needed. I would ask the Minister, when she gets the opportunity, to encourage her Scottish Government counterparts to back the proposals put forward by the Scottish Conservatives and supported by Labour. That would ensure that the Scottish Government got back to providing treatment for those diagnosed with an addiction in Scotland.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing this debate, and I thank all colleagues who have spoken today. I think it is apparent that everybody in the Chamber cares very deeply about this issue and about how we deal with the harm done to individuals, communities and society by drugs, and I hope that the same is true of everybody across the Commons. I am also very grateful to the Scottish Affairs Committee for its work in this area and for conducting its inquiry. I thank all those who took part in it and who have given us the opportunity to reflect on the issues that were raised.
In the short time that I have been the Minister for Policing and Crime, I have met families who have lost loved ones through drugs, and in my own time as a constituency MP, I have regularly seen the impact of drugs. I think that we can all agree that we need to do everything we can as a country.
Dame Carol Black, who was appointed under the previous Government to be the independent adviser on drugs, has recently agreed to continue her role, for which I am very grateful. I have had the privilege of talking to her about the strategy that she developed under the previous Government and about how we think it can work. We are delivering, as the previous Government did, on the recommendations of her landmark review, which was wide-ranging. It was not just about the enforcement side—making our streets safer—but about making our communities healthier and making people better, treating them in the right way so that they can recover and thrive.
I also want to welcome Professor David Wood, the new chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. His huge experience and knowledge will be invaluable, and we are really pleased to see him. We are committed to providing people who use drugs with the support that they need. There was some debate about whether we look at the role of drugs through a Home Office or a health lens; to my mind, it should be both. When I speak to the Minister for Public Health, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), she is very clear that she takes a public health approach to drug and alcohol addiction and treatment.
We are investing £3.4 billion over the next three years in treatment, sustainable recovery services and peer networks that can support people in recovery with employment, housing and education. The need for the holistic approach was raised by the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). I think it is the right approach, and that £3.4 billion over the next three years will help.
There are new treatments and new ways of supporting people. I have spoken to the sector about how we make sure treatments are available not just for the traditional opioid addictions, but for new forms of addiction, whether that is ketamine or other drugs, and how we evolve slightly different approaches over time. The Home Office and the Department of Health meet together; I meet my colleague in the Department of Health who is overseeing all the treatment interventions. We want to keep on top of all the emerging evidence about what treatment is best, and we work constantly with operational partners across the country to make sure we deliver the right treatment.
On drugs harm, the need for interventions and the need to get rid of the criminal gangs that drive that practice, the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), talked about the county lines programme. That programme has had a significant impact in reducing harm as well as arresting criminals, taking them off the streets and shutting down county lines. Since we came to power in July 2024 the programme has led to more than 8,000 arrests and the closure of 3,000 county lines. Importantly, in that period alone 600 vulnerable young people were supported with specialist services to build safer futures. The criminal gangs exploit children and use the drugs trade to make money; by focusing on them through the county lines programme, we have had significant success in terms of drug misuse, hospitalisations and the actual impact on the criminals being arrested.
The National Crime Agency works tirelessly on disrupting and dismantling the networks. At the UK border, through intelligence with other countries and the advanced technology that we use, we are intercepting more drugs than ever. In the year ending March 2024, Border Force seized more than 100 tonnes of drugs—the highest amount on record. We are determined to reduce the number of drug-related deaths throughout the UK. We of course recognise the importance of evidence-based, high-quality treatment, and will continue to take preventive public health measures to tackle drug misuse and support people to live better lives.
In the response to the Select Committee’s report, I made the Government’s position on Glasgow’s pilot drug consumption room clear. We recognise the Scottish Government’s need to tackle drug misuse. We have talked already about the statistics on the number of drug deaths in Scotland, so I will not repeat them, but they are incredibly high and we recognise that more needs to be done. We recognise that where responsibility is devolved, the Scottish Government will need to tackle drug misuse in the ways that they see fit.
The Lord Advocate has issued a statement of prosecution policy for the operation of the pilot drug consumption room in Glasgow, as has been talked about. We respect the independence of that decision. I want to be clear that we have no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act to enable the operation of drug consumption rooms in any part of the United Kingdom, but we are committed to working closely and positively with the Scottish Government.
We meet collectively. The UK Government lead the UK drugs ministerial team, which is a forum for Ministers from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That forum provides the opportunity for all four Governments to talk to one another and to come together to share challenges and best practice. The last meeting was in Edinburgh and hosted by the Scottish Government, and we will meet again this year, enabling us to talk to one another and to share information. Of course we will also work closely with the Scottish Government to enable licensed drug-checking facilities to operate lawfully.
As we have heard, chronic drug dependence plagues the lives not just of individuals, but of those closest to them. It is in all our interests to prevent people from being engulfed by that spiral, and to help those who have on to a better path. There is a determination from this Government to get it right and to look at the evidence. We are not persuaded to make any of the changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West and her Committee asked us to make, but that is not to say that we should not carry on talking about these issues.
The evidence-based approach that has been talked about and the review that is being done of the pilot at the Thistle are very important. I very much want to see what the evidence shows. I am committed to making sure we are always learning and always changing our approach. We met as a collective group of Ministers across Government to look at some of the problems in, for example, the prison system—we know it is a huge driver of drug use—and to see what we can do collectively across Government. When the three-year pilot of the Thistle is finished, we will of course look at that and will want to see what we can do in response. I think we collectively agree on the need to tackle drug misuse as a health issue as well as a Home Office and crime issue. This Government are doing both, but I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues in the days and months ahead to make sure we get it right.
Patricia Ferguson
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that response. It is clear that, across this room, we all share the goal of tackling the harms caused by problem drug use. However, in the face of the crisis that we have talked about today, I do not think we can afford to dismiss any potential remedy, so I take this opportunity to once again encourage the Government to follow the evidence.
As we have heard, there will be an evaluation of the Thistle published in three years’ time, but some interim work is likely to be done before then. As part of our inquiry, the Committee also visited drug consumption rooms in Oslo, Bergen and Lisbon—those in Oslo have been going for more than 20 years. Around the world, there is a lot of hard evidence demonstrating that these facilities have a part to play not only in eradicating drug use, but in controlling the way in which drugs are used.
Drug consumption rooms are not the only intervention available to us, nor should they be. They are complementary to and should work in tandem with vital recovery services, as well as other harm reduction interventions. Our Committee has been clear that these facilities are just one tool available to address problem drug use—and that is what they are about: problem drug use. With Scotland continuing to record the highest rate of drug deaths in Europe, our response has to match the scale of that crisis.
I am very grateful to Members from around the House for their contributions this afternoon. I thank my friend and co-Committee member, whose constituency I cannot remember—the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan)—for his contribution this afternoon. Both he and his SNP predecessor on the Committee, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), played a very constructive part in bringing together our report. I am sure that he, like me, was very impressed by the mobile facilities that we saw when we visited Lisbon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), whose constituency name is much easier for me to remember, is obviously a great champion for his community. He is absolutely right that the views of the community must be heard, but the community also need more regular feedback about what is being done to address their concerns. That is one of the things we highlighted in our report, and I want to highlight it again today.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) was absolutely correct that we need a package of measures and that our approach needs to be evidence-based. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for his contribution. He is right that this is not simple, but I ask him to reflect on the fact that in the time the Thistle has been open, 78 overdoses have been dealt with on the premises. If they had not taken place in the Thistle, those overdoses would likely have taken place on the street or in those people’s homes, where they would likely have been alone, and might have resulted in increased deaths. One thing we know from the evidence is that there has never been a death from an overdose in a safer drug consumption facility anywhere in the world, and that history now goes back over 20 years. We must remember that and have it at the forefront of our minds when discussing this problem.
Thank you for your steady chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank all hon. Members for their time and thoughtful contributions on this important issue; I hope they will keep an open mind.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Third Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, Problem drug use in Scotland follow-up: Glasgow’s Safer Drug Consumption Facility, HC 630, and the Government response, HC 1485.
Backbench Business
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
Myanmar: Religious Minority Persecution
(2 days, 6 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
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered religious minority persecution in Myanmar.
This is something that has been on my mind, and the mind of lots of us, for some time. We may not know very much about Myanmar in relation to religious persecution, but I am glad to see my friend and colleague in the Gallery who, along with Rev. Cecil Rasa, told us all about what was happening.
This debate has also been some time coming. There has been great interest from many hon. Members in holding Backbench Business debates, so it has taken until now for us to have this opportunity, but I am very pleased to have it and I thank the Backbench Business Committee. It is indeed an honour to introduce this debate on Myanmar and to speak once again for those whose voices are silenced by violence, repression and fear. We will hear some of the things—hopefully others will contribute as well—that relate to just how bad the situation is in Myanmar.
I speak today because freedom of religion or belief is not a peripheral concern; it is a foundational human right. When freedom of religion or belief collapses, other rights collapse alongside it: freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, access to justice and, ultimately, the right to life itself. Myanmar today is a stark example of that truth. Since the military coup of February 2021, religious freedom in Myanmar has continued to worsen amid civil war.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing today’s debate on Myanmar, because religious and ethnic minorities there are facing some of the harshest persecution. He will no doubt be aware that Christian communities have seen their churches destroyed, their clergy imprisoned and aid blocked, and that long-persecuted Muslim communities such as the Rohingya and the Uyghurs remain stateless, are severely restricted in their movements and face further persecution. Does he agree that international condemnation, co-ordination and action are urgently needed to protect those vulnerable groups?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend—he has been my friend for all the time I have known him—for his intervention. He is absolutely right, and he has outlined, in those two or three sentences, what this debate is all about. It is an opportunity to highlight religious minorities and persecution, with a focus on Myanmar.
Independent monitoring by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom documents the destruction and occupation of religious sites, the killing of clergy and civilians, and the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid by the military authorities. Churches, mosques and monasteries have been affected by airstrikes, shelling and arson. In some cases, places of worship have been occupied or used by troops, turning sites of prayer into military targets. Aid convoys have been blocked or prohibited, even in areas of acute need. Religious leaders have been detained and harassed.
I know there are many issues demanding the attention of this House, and there has just been a debate in the main Chamber about the same thing, but I often think of Galatians 6:9, which urges us not to grow weary in doing good, for in due season we will reap if we diligently sow. The Bible very clearly gives us a challenge—indeed, it is a directive—about what we should do. We must not allow Myanmar to become a forgotten crisis, where atrocities continue in plain sight. We must continue to do what we can to help the vulnerable and the needy, and there are many of them.
The junta’s violence is nationwide, but its impact is especially severe on minority communities and on religious life itself. The USCIRF reports that over 3.4 million people have been displaced in recent years. That includes some 90,000 people displaced in Christian-majority Chin state, and around 237,200 in Kachin state. Alongside this internal displacement, around 1 million Rohingya refugees remain in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh, living in prolonged exile, with absolutely no indication of when they will be able to return. That is one of the things we should look at today. I should have said that I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place. I always look forward to the Minister’s response. I wish her well in her role, and I look forward to her replies to our questions.
Those figures are not abstract. They represent families torn from their homes, congregations scattered, and communities unable to gather safely to worship. For many, the simple act of practising their faith has become a source of danger. This is not only a freedom of religion or belief issue viewed in isolation; it sits within a much wider framework of state violence. UN-linked reporting has documented systematic torture by Myanmar’s security forces, including cases involving children, as well as sexual abuse and sexual attacks on women and girls. I do not know whether it is my age, but I certainly get more affected by the things happening in the world than I ever did before. It is almost inconceivable to comprehend all the horror taking place.
It is important to note that FoRB violations in Myanmar are part of a broader pattern of repression and brutality. They are not isolated incidents. The plight of the Rohingya Muslims remains one of the gravest examples of this persecution. UN fact finders concluded that there were grounds to investigate senior Tatmadaw leaders for genocide and other international crimes, and they explicitly called for criminal investigation and prosecution. Can the Minister confirm whether she is aware of a criminal investigation taking place? Are there grounds for prosecution? Obviously, that would all be built on evidence, but has that started?
Crucially, this issue did not begin and end in 2017. Amnesty International has described a state-sponsored system of apartheid in Rakhine state marked by institutional discrimination, segregation and extreme restrictions on movement and daily life. Rohingya communities are confined, controlled and denied access to basic services. A people stripped of citizenship, boxed in by policy, and punished for trying to move—this is not merely insecurity; it is engineered oppression.
Christian communities have also suffered targeted attacks, particularly in Chin, Kachin and Karenni areas. The USCIRF documents repeated attacks on churches and confirms that the military has destroyed religious buildings and killed clergy and civilians through airstrikes and arson. The USCIRF further reports that at least 128 religious persons have been detained by the authorities, including 113 Buddhist monks, one imam and 14 Christians. These are not random arrests. They reflect a deliberate effort to intimidate religious leadership and community life. There are many examples, but one case in particular brings this into sharp focus: Rev. Hkalam Samson of the Kachin Baptist Convention—a respected Christian leader who is much loved in his area—was arrested, granted amnesty, and then re-arrested within hours. This is injustice. It is harassment, designed to send a message that no religious leader is beyond reach—no religious leader is safe.
More broadly, independent monitoring documents attacks and intimidation affecting multiple faith communities in churches, mosques and monasteries, and across several regions and states. When places of worship themselves become targets, freedom of religion or belief ceases to exist in any meaningful sense in the area—not just for the places of worship themselves, but for the practising Christians, Rohingya Muslims and people of other faiths as well.
We must also be clear about why these abuses occur. Many analysts argue that the Tatmadaw has long instrumentalised race and religion narratives to legitimise repression. It is beyond dispute that independent monitoring documents repeated targeting of religious leaders and religious sites across communities, reflecting persecution linked to identity rather than military necessity. They are being targeted because of who they are—because of their religious beliefs.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. I have come along to learn more about the situation, which is, frankly, puzzling. Is the regime motivated by some form of extreme religion of its own? Is it just ultra-nationalism? Is it doing all this persecution to repress the people and keep them in a form of captivity, or to drive people whom it does not like because of their identity out of the country completely?
Jim Shannon
As always, the right hon. Member brings wisdom to the debate. He is right to highlight that the Tatmadaw and the authorities are using people’s religion and race as reasons to legitimise repression. As far as they are concerned, they do not want people to have anything, and by focusing on those things, they take away the very right to express religious belief—to have a race, a different culture and a different history.
Another root cause is Myanmar’s discriminatory legal architecture, particularly its citizenship regime, which probably highlights the very point that the right hon. Member just referred to. The 1982 citizenship law embeds exclusion by tying full citizenship to state-defined nationality categories and strict criteria, while granting wide discretion over who qualifies—in other words, it directly discriminates. Amnesty International documents how this framework has left most Rohingya without full citizenship rights, despite generations of residence in Rakhine state.
Citizenship denial is not symbolic; it is operational. Amnesty shows how exclusion from citizenship underpins restrictions on freedom of movement, access to education, healthcare, participation in public life and legal protection. It forms the backbone of the apartheid-like system imposed on Rohingya communities. Amnesty also documents how temporary registration cards, often known as “white cards”, were revoked, leaving many Rohingya without identity documentation linked to rights or political participation—even further entrenching their vulnerability.
This is not an accident of bureaucracy. When a state writes exclusion into its citizenship law, it builds persecution into the legal system itself—and that is how it pursues its goals. Impunity compounds all of this. The military’s long history of avoiding accountability encourages repetition. Atrocities become a tactic, not an aberration. UN fact-finding missions have emphasised the need for criminal investigation and prosecution, yet meaningful accountability remains elusive.
There are also factors that worsen and sustain this crisis. UN investigators have highlighted the role of social media, particularly Facebook, in spreading hate speech and incitement against the Rohingya. That does not absolve the state of responsibility, but it shows how hatred has been amplified and normalised. Doing it so often means that it becomes a way of life that focuses on those who are in a religious minority.
Of course, we cannot point fingers outwards and not look internally. International action also plays a role. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned Myanmar in the main Chamber debate and referred to the Magnitsky sanctions that need to be in place for some of the Myanmar leaders. With great respect, the Government—this has been going on for a number of years, so it is not just this Government, but previous ones—have not pursued those involved in horrendous things in Myanmar, but they should have.
When decisive multilateral action stalls, the junta itself can outlast condemnation. Annual monitoring shows that detention, attacks on religious sites and the obstruction of aid continues despite years of international concern. Humanitarian obstruction remains a central tool of control. The USCIRF states that the military has blocked or prohibited critical aid from reaching displaced people, worsening their suffering and vulnerability —especially for minorities. All my life I have said that if a person is denied their human rights, they are also denied their religious viewpoint, and if they are denied their religious viewpoint, their human rights are also denied.
The question is: what should be done and what can realistically be done? We cannot solve all the problems of the world—if only we could—but the bit that we can do, we should do. In the immediate term, civilians and places of worship must be protected. Humanitarian aid must be allowed to reach those in need. I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm where, or if, that is happening. I ask that the Foreign Office tie the substantial funding that we give to Myanmar to the principle of freedom of religion or belief. The UK has provided over £190 million for aid, healthcare and civil society since the 2021 coup, including some £66.45 million in the financial year 2024-25 alone. That was boosted by £10 million for the 2025 earthquake, with further funds for the refugee crisis—always with enhanced due diligence to avoid the military regime benefiting. We must leverage our goodness to them and ensure their goodness to their own.
In the medium term, the international community must constrain the junta’s capacity to wage war, including through air power, and strengthen evidence gathering and accountability mechanisms. Those who carry out abysmal and despicable crimes need to be made accountable, and the evidence needs to be gathered and made ready so that we can at some stage hold them accountable. Diplomacy can be a mighty tool and I believe that we can do more.
In the long term, there can be no durable peace without an inclusive settlement in which citizenship and equality are restored—especially for the Rohingya—so that freedom of religion or belief is protected by law, not dependent on good will or military discretion. For many years, the House has repeatedly raised concerns about freedom of religion or belief and wider human rights abuses in Myanmar. The question now is whether our actions match the scale of the crisis.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, will the Government commit to regular, published assessments of freedom of religion or belief and human rights in Myanmar, using independent monitoring benchmarks? It is really important that we have an independent body that is able to assess what is happening in Myanmar specifically. Through that, we will be able to gauge whether persecution is decreasing, or if there is any more action that we could take.
Secondly, what further steps will the UK take with allies to constrain the junta’s capacity for attacks that destroy religious sites and kill civilians? The air force has been used to bomb and kill, and to destroy churches and even hospitals and schools—nothing is ruled out in the junta’s attacks. Something really needs to be done to ensure that they stop.
Thirdly, how will the Government ensure that humanitarian aid reaches displaced minorities when the military deliberately blocks assistance? We know evidentially that whenever aid was sent from here to Myanmar, the military blocked it, put obstacles in its way and ensured that assistance did not get to the people that it should have.
Fourthly, what additional support will be provided to the accountability pathways identified by UN fact-finding work on genocide and other international crimes? I would love to have the people who have carried out these crimes made accountable in the court of this world, and then jailed accordingly. I am a Christian; I know that whenever they come to the next world, they will be accountable then. We all know where they will end up: they will end up in a place that is very warm—in hell. Still, I would love to see them get their justice in this world, just as they will get their justice in the next—I know that is going to happen, no matter what.
Myanmar’s crisis is not only political. It is a crisis of conscience, where identity is punished, worship is targeted, and the law itself—as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said—is used as a weapon. This House must continue to speak clearly, consistently and persistently for those who cannot. Let us not be weary in doing good, and let us do what we can in Myanmar. I believe that with renewed focus, we can reap a harvest of freedom for those living in fear in that place. Our job today is to speak for them. They have no voice; today, we are their voice.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Four Back Benchers want to speak, and I will have the chance to call all of them. We have 40 minutes before the Front-Bench speeches, so that is fairly easy to work out: there are 10 minutes each, if you want to take them.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate; he is well known in the House for defending the rights of minority faith groups, wherever they are found. The Backbench Business Committee was right to grant this important debate, so that the House has an opportunity to put a spotlight on one of the worst conflicts currently on the globe—one that does not share as much attention as other conflicts.
I wanted to secure a similar debate myself, but as the hon. Member was successful in securing this one, I was pleased to put my name down to speak, putting on record the importance of civil society in these matters. In my constituency, the human rights group meets every 10 December in Crouch End to have a Write for Rights Day, and Burma-Myanmar is always one of the areas where it highlights the importance of supporting victims of human rights violations, showing that humanity can win. I also put on record my thanks to the Burma Campaign UK, and to other civil society groups, which are so active in this regard.
We know that religious persecution is one aspect of the awful ordeal that the people of Myanmar have endured for far too long. In March 2025, Myanmar was already facing one of the world’s biggest humanitarian crises after four years of conflict, with up to 7 million children out of school. The impact of that on every family in Myanmar—and on the fastest growing region in the world in terms of economic growth—is that 7 million children will be out of school and uneducated. That will dog them for the rest of their days, and create many local problems in the region.
Drawing on the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the Rohingya people and the impact of the mass movement of people over the border has led to a very fragile situation in Bangladesh. In just a month’s time, on 12 February, there will be a general election in Bangladesh. The fragile situation could easily be worsened through the further movement of people along that border, which is one of the highly militarised areas in this conflict. I hope the UK can continue to support both Bangladesh with its upcoming election next month, and Myanmar, in any way that it can through the mission in Yangon.
We are also very aware of the catastrophic earthquake that devastated a huge area of the country around the region of Sagaing. Thousands of people were killed; hundreds of thousands more lost their homes. I put on record my praise for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which worked well with a network of partners to deliver support on the ground, despite the challenges. It was just as effective in its intervention as China and a number of other important players in the region, but we need to keep that up. The humanitarian needs remain huge, and this awful conflict rages on.
Sixteen million people will require lifesaving assistance in 2026, nearly five years since the Myanmar military overturned the democratically elected Government. The regime continues to bomb and kill civilians. We have heard of that from personal stories that have come through the many representations made to MPs in this House. The military’s blockade of aid has led to severe food and medicine shortages and brought Rakhine state to the brink of famine. Two million people there are at risk of starvation.
On 10 December 2025 which, as I said earlier, was International Human Rights Day, this awful regime decided to call in an airstrike on a hospital in Rakhine state, killing more than 30 civilians, including health workers, elderly patients and children. I have spoken to people who provide vaccinations for children who have had to resign their posts because they were too terrified to go into villages for fear of aerial bombardments, as well as medics who have provided support and done surgery in trenches while bombs were falling on their heads. Médecins Sans Frontières, which has supported the hospital since 2021, said:
“Bombing of health facilities, patients being killed in their beds, this cannot be perceived as collateral damage in a conflict zone. Hospitals must remain a safe place for patients to receive medical care”.
We know that in 2024, Myanmar ranked fourth for attacks on healthcare workers.
I welcome the UK’s financial, trade and travel ban sanctions against the military regime in Myanmar. I argued for them early in 2024 as the shadow Minister for the region. I also welcome the UK’s statement at the UN on the military regime’s sham elections, which are neither free nor fair. We need the Myanmar military to cease hostilities, respect international law and protect civilians. The people of Myanmar need a peaceful, democratic future, but we are a long way from that. We need to keep hope alive. It is my plea that, in a world so full of uncertainty, we do not forget about Myanmar.
The UK has done such great work in Myanmar, together with our partners, but the people of Myanmar still need us. Can the Minister tell us what funding this desperate country attracts in her regional funding following the Chancellor’s statement in November 2025? Could she also provide her assessment of the potential for further sanctions on the Government of Myanmar and third parties, such as energy suppliers, to assist in slowing down the dreadful war machine that is harming so many civilians in Myanmar on a daily basis?
Finally, could the Minister update the House on progress in the International Court of Justice case, led by Gambia with the backing of the UK and the 57 members of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, so that the people of Myanmar can finally see justice in their lifetimes?
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing this vital and unfortunately forgotten issue to the fore with this debate. When we speak about conflict, we sometimes look at the numbers and forget the nuances and the people who matter. As the saying goes, one death is a tragedy but a million deaths is a statistic, and so it goes with this tragedy, because behind every number are real people.
One case particularly puts that into perspective. On new year’s day, a Rohingya man by the name of Mohammed Faruque woke up in a bamboo shelter in camp 7 in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh. His phone was full of birthday messages wishing him a happy birthday. It was also his wife’s birthday, his parents’ birthdays, his siblings’ birthday, his friends’ birthday and the birthdays of hundreds and thousands of other people in that camp. We all know it was not their birthday, but when they fled the massacres, arson and rape in February 2017 the poor, frankly overwhelmed care workers just entered 1 January on everybody’s refugee cards. Mohammed Faruque said:
“When I see this date, I feel like I am no one.”
That single sentence answers the question that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) asked: why is this being done? It is because the people of Myanmar and the junta are trying to deprive people of other ethnicities of any form of identity. They are erasing their identities and who they are.
In Myanmar, faith and identity are intertwined. Since the coup in 2021, as mentioned by all those who have spoken in this debate, persecution has escalated dramatically. More than 200 religious institutions, including Buddhist monasteries, Christian churches, mosques and even Hindu temples have been destroyed or looted, and at least 41 religious leaders have been killed, including monks, Christian clergymen and Muslim imams, not just because of their faith but because of the overlap between faith and ethnicity.
The Rohingya Muslims have suffered the most extreme violence. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has called their treatment
“a textbook example of ethnic cleansing”,
and a United Nations expert has identified “the hallmarks of genocide”, but this persecution, as has been mentioned, does not just stop with one community. Ethnic Christian populations, particularly in Chin and Kachin states, have seen churches bombed and pastors killed, and religious identity has become a marker for punishment. They have been tortured, raped and executed on a daily basis. The cause is that the military junta is holding power through fear. It is a regime that has scapegoated minority communities and weaponised religion. That has been in the playbook for brutal and insecure regimes for millennia. It is being employed now in other parts of the world, and I am afraid that it will continue to be used in the future as well.
There may be a light at the end of the tunnel, because the junta has never been weaker. It is only controlling about 20% of the country’s territory at the moment and thousands of soldiers have defected. There is a possible future for democracy, but the international community must step in if that is to happen, because in the meantime, civilians are paying the price. Overall, more than 2.6 million people have been internally displaced in Myanmar and about 1.3 million have fled abroad. Nearly 1 million Rohingya now live in Bangladesh, a country that already has 170 million people of its own, while 40,000 Rohingya—the number may be even greater than that—have sought refuge in India. Therefore, in addition to all the incredible aid agencies and aid workers who deserve recognition, India and Bangladesh also deserve some credit, because they have accepted large numbers of refugees despite facing their own population pressures and resource constraints.
Those pressures have unfortunately led to horrifying consequences, as was maybe to be expected. There have been stories of refugees being pushed back into the sea and of families being separated. There have been reports of Rohingya men, women and children allegedly being forced to jump from a naval vessel and asked to swim for their lives in the Andaman sea. Camps in Bangladesh are dangerously overcrowded, and fires, disease, violence and rape are unfortunately becoming routine. This is a failure not just of humanity and compassion, but of international burden sharing.
That brings me to our responsibility. I want to put a few of the issues to the Minister. First, we must confront the enablers of the crisis. The junta survives because it is propped up militarily, diplomatically and economically by external actors. Some of those countries may even have veto powers at the United Nations. The proxy enablers must be named, challenged and pressured. Secondly, we must seek justice. We should actively support the international legal action, joining Gambia’s case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice, backing the ICC investigation to ensure that the junta is held accountable for genocide and crimes against humanity. Thirdly, we must support democracy wherever we can. I feel that the future depends on a genuine federal democracy, which protects religious freedoms, recognises ethnic equality and ends decades of civil war.
Finally I say to the Minister, we must match our words with actions and resources. Cutting the humanitarian aid to the Rohingya refugees and other displaced communities will have, and is having, catastrophic consequences. Aid to the region has dropped by 85% in the past five years, from more than £112 million to just £16.9 million. That is why we must make a commitment to ringfence overseas aid for that region, not just out of charity, but as prevention—prevention of further displacement, further regional instability and future atrocities.
This is not just a moral issue, but a strategic one. We should ensure that Britain remains a reliable partner, that the humanitarian system does not collapse, and that countries such as Bangladesh, India, Thailand and Vietnam are not left to manage the international crisis alone. I ask the Minister, what aid will we provide for the crisis? Mohammed Faruque does not want a different birthday; he wants recognition that his life, his history and his identity matter.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing the crisis in Myanmar to our attention and I congratulate the other Back-Bench speakers in the debate so far on their eloquent and important contributions.
I declare my long-standing membership of the Burma Campaign UK. I joined because, about 20 to 25 years ago, I heard testimony from two Burmese refugees at my local Labour party meeting. I asked what I could do, and they said that I should sign up to the Burma Campaign. That is part of the reason I am speaking today, having received their updates and understanding what is going on in the country. I also commend the Burma Campaign on the consistency of its support for human rights. Whatever the changes—the political twists and turns in society in Myanmar, or whichever individuals ended up on different sides of the debate—they have not mattered, because the campaign has consistently advocated for fundamental human rights.
As we have heard, Myanmar is in the midst of a humanitarian crisis. Since the military coup in 2021, the Christian and Muslim minority populations of Myanmar have encountered greater violence and tighter restrictions on their freedom. In Rakhine state, about 630,000 Rohingya Muslims remain subject to systematic abuses and crimes against humanity. About 150,000 are held in open-air detention camps. The Rohingya are one of the largest stateless populations in the world, in effect having been denied citizenship since 1982. As we heard from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), about 1 million Rohingya live in overcrowded refugee camps in Bangladesh, after fleeing Myanmar in 2017, showing the tangible impact of the persecution that we are highlighting, with the displacement of swathes of people, condemning them to a poor quality of life.
As conflict rages in this part of Myanmar, the Rohingya have been caught between the junta and the Arakan Army, which the UN has documented committing multiple violations of international law. Both sides have indiscriminately attacked civilians since hostilities between them resumed in November 2023. I therefore ask the Minister whether she can assure us that aid to Rohingya refugees and the people of Myanmar will not be cut in the context of the overall UK aid budget. The Arakan Army also pursues its agenda of oppression by less direct means. It limits freedom of speech, censors access to international media and communications, arrests journalists, and threatens civil society organisations in the area it controls.
For Christians, the situation is similarly bleak. Believers have been killed and churches have been indiscriminately attacked. Nowhere has that been more intense than in the landlocked state of Chin—the poorest of Myanmar’s 14 states and regions. More and more Christians have been driven out of their homes, finding refuge in churches or displacement camps. Some have even been forced to flee to the jungle, where they are deprived of access to food and basic healthcare. Last year, Myanmar rose two places on the Open Doors world watch list, an annual ranking of the 50 countries where Christians face the most extreme persecution. It now scores in the extreme category for persecution. That categorisation puts the situation facing Christians in Myanmar on a par with that in places such as Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Myanmar is currently in the process of holding a set of elections that no observer could characterise as free or fair. They will be an opportunity for the Burmese military to rebrand and put forward a false narrative that it is reforming. Frankly, it will not concern the Burmese military that we can see the elections for what they are: a sham. The military junta has said it itself that, in its view,
“Whether the international community is satisfied or not, is irrelevant.”
These elections are vital in understanding this issue. They will be passed off as a front for the appalling human rights abuses and the persecution of minorities we have heard about today. We must stand steadfast against that and reject the idea that these so-called elections give any legitimacy to a malign regime.
In April 2025, the UK supported a Human Rights Council resolution calling for the protection of civilians and all minorities. It has also been clear that it does not regard the military regime in Myanmar as a legitimate Government. I am pleased that the Government have committed to taking any steps they can, including sanctions, to bring about peace. Today is an important chance to strengthen our resolve and stand up for persecuted people who need our protection. Will the Minister therefore explain why it has been more than a year since any new sanctions were imposed to cut off money and arms going to the Myanmar military? Will she assure the House that we will resume imposing such sanctions?
We must not allow the religious minority communities of Myanmar to suffer in silence. I join colleagues across the House in urging the Government to keep standing up for the rights of those persecuted people by expanding targeted sanctions against those committing atrocities, directing humanitarian aid towards those who need it the most and working through international institutions to hold the military junta and other forces waging war in the region to account. Today, we must reaffirm that the UK will never stand by as religious freedom is crushed and human rights are denied.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts, for this important debate on religious minority persecution in Myanmar. As I have done so often over the years, I sincerely thank and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the driving force behind the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, for securing this debate and ensuring that people who have been persecuted for professing their beliefs or—just as importantly—those exercising their human rights not to believe or practise a faith, wherever they are in the world, are not forgotten about. With the world on a seemingly endless cycle, stumbling from crisis to disaster and back again, it would be all too easy to forget or choose to ignore issues such as the persecution of religious minorities, but it is vital that we do not do so or allow others to forget or choose to ignore such a fundamental human rights issue.
No one would wish us to forget or ignore this issue more than the military regime in Myanmar, where for decades a deliberate policy of religious and ethnic cleansing has been pursued as they seek to Burmanise the country. Burmanisation is the belief that true Myanmar citizens are both Burman and, of course, Buddhist. That is why the citizenship law was introduced in 1982 to strip Rohingya Muslims of their citizenship, rendering many of them effectively stateless and making them foreigners in their own land. That hideous, racist, sectarian policy excluded minorities from the political process and limited the social and economic development of ethnic minority communities by curtailing their cultural and religious freedoms.
The attempt to erase the identity of anyone who is not both Burman and Buddhist has resulted in the most appalling oppression of religious minority communities. Notably, as we have heard, Rohingya Muslims and Christians have been the primary victims of this ethno-religious Burmese nationalism. As we just heard, this year the charity Open Doors declared that Myanmar has risen up its world watch list rankings, and is now deemed the 13th most dangerous place in the world in which to be a Christian. Since 2021, Open Doors has recorded a steep rise in murders, destruction of places of worship and forced displacement, and has now put Myanmar in the extreme category for religious persecution.
State-sponsored religious persecution—as we have heard from every speaker in this debate—has caused Rohingya Muslims to flee, predominantly over the border to refugee camps in Bangladesh, where they are having to endure some of the worst living conditions on the planet, because they are fleeing what the United Nations has described as an “ongoing genocide” at the hands of the Myanmar military. So fearful are they of returning that appalling squalor and overcrowded camps are deemed preferable to the fate that would await them should they return home. Displacement, murder, repression and widespread endemic gender-based sexual violence are every bit as real a threat there today as they were in 2017, when over 1 million Rohingya Muslims fled to Bangladesh. It is worth remembering that in 2019, the United Nations described gender-based sexual violence as the hallmark of the Burmese military’s operations in Myanmar.
The Rohingya are stuck in what has been described as a hell on earth. For the benefit of Members who were not here the last time we debated Myanmar and the situation in Cox’s Bazar and Bangladesh, I will repeat what the journalist and documentary filmmaker Simon Reeve said after he visited one of those camps. He said it was
“like nothing I have seen anywhere on Planet Earth. This speaks of a Biblical exodus of an entire people terrorised into fleeing.”
Yet for those people, living in that unimaginable horror is deemed preferable and safer than returning home.
The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) is right that the situation for Rohingya Muslims living in the camps is only getting worse. Minister, that is in no small part due to the shameful decision by this Government to ape the previous Government and slash UK overseas aid, leaving Bangladesh—already one of the poorest countries in the world—to shoulder a massively disproportionate share of the costs of looking after more than 1 million refugees. When helpless, homeless refugees are dumped on impoverished countries, it leads to the crisis in Bangladesh that was alluded to earlier. We have a moral responsibility to do something about that.
As much as the Rohingya may wish to return home in a safe and dignified manner, such a return is not possible while the military in Myanmar is pursuing its reign of terror. The stark truth is that the Rohingya will be able to return home only when a Government committed to human rights, religious freedom and the rule of law are established. That prospect is unfortunately a long way off, because Myanmar, as we have heard so often, is in the grip of a man-made humanitarian crisis. The situation for the country’s religious minorities who have remained continues to worsen and the regime ramps up its persecution of those communities by attacking places of worship, forcibly conscripting minorities into its military, and continuing its genocide of the Rohingya Muslims.
As we also heard earlier, there are other armed players in this conflict who are also perpetrating abuses that disproportionately affect religious minorities—notably, the Rohingya Muslims and Christians. It is a dire situation. I desperately urge the Government to reassess the short-term, counterproductive and frankly inhumane decision to cut overseas aid; every single penny taken out of that aid pot has real-life, real-world consequences for men, women and children.
Although the return of UK aid would undoubtedly help considerably, so too would allowing refugees in Bangladesh the right to work and thereby to support themselves and their families. Of course I can understand why the Bangladesh Government would be reluctant to make legislative change that would, in their eyes, encourage 1 million or so refugees to stay within Bangladesh’s borders. But the reality is that these people cannot return home until it is safe for them to do so, and that is not happening any time soon.
Last month, I visited Thailand and Malaysia with the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief to meet many of those refugee communities who have been fleeing persecution—chiefly the Ahmadiyyas, Vietnamese Christians, Uyghurs, Chinese Christians and Iranian Christians, but also many more. Like Bangladesh, Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 refugee convention. Legally, in Thailand, there is no such thing as a refugee, despite hundreds of thousands of them living there.
The largest group of refugees in Thailand are from Myanmar, and they have lived in the camps along Thailand’s northern border for decades. With no legal right to work they obviously make a living in the black market, but in recent months the Thai Government have recognised the reality that such people are unable to return home and could well be an economic asset, and so have loosened the rules to allow them to work legally in Thailand. Perhaps, at least, the Government of Bangladesh might look at that—and indeed, why would the UK Government not look at it as well? What is happening in Thailand could happen in Bangladesh, and here. Refugees can be that economic asset. Allowing them to work will allow them to contribute, better themselves and benefit us all.
I again thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this debate. I hope the Government can see that, although the persecution of these communities happens so far from our shores, we have a moral and a humanitarian obligation to help—because we absolutely, certainly do.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate, and for all his work. I also thank all the hon. Members, from across the parties, who have spoken in this debate with such clarity and conviction, and so powerfully.
Next month marks four years since Myanmar’s military junta launched its brutal coup against the country’s elected Government. In the years since, Myanmar has been plunged into a brutal, bloody civil war. The consequences have been devastating, with mass killings, widespread displacement, economic collapse and profound human suffering across the country. Myanmar’s military junta has long been the principal driver of repression, including in the sham elections, and particularly in the persecution of religious minorities. What we witness today in Myanmar is not random unrest between non-state militias; it is systematic state violence with airstrikes on civilian areas, arbitrary detention, torture and collective punishment. It is a deliberate, large-scale system of repression, which has deep roots.
For decades, the Rohingya Muslim population has been subjected to sustained persecution, stripped of citizenship, denied basic civil rights and subjected to repeated military attacks. Over 600,000 Rohingya remain trapped in Rakhine state, stateless, confined to camps and facing severe restrictions on movement, healthcare and livelihoods.
More than 1 million Rohingya have fled the country, primarily to neighbouring Bangladesh, as we have heard. They face appalling conditions: the largest refugee camp in the world is in Bangladesh, just across the Myanmar border. Christians in Myanmar have also faced growing repression. Around 4 million Christians live in the country, many of them in ethnic minority regions that have borne the brunt of military violence. Churches have been damaged or destroyed, religious leaders have been detained, and entire communities have been displaced by airstrikes and ground offensives. Those are clear violations of the most basic freedoms—freedom of belief, freedom of worship and freedom from fear.
That brings me to the central point that I want to make today. The persecution of religious minorities in Myanmar does not occur in isolation; it is part of a far wider assault—an attack on not just specific communities but civilian society itself. Nearly a decade ago, when the Rohingya Muslims were subjected to large-scale military operations that drove them into a corner of the country and across borders, that moment should have been a turning point for international resolve. Instead, it became something else entirely. It became a test, and the world failed it.
What happened to the Rohingya was not an aberration but the tragic rehearsal of what was to come next. The tactics first deployed against the Rohingya, including collective punishment, mass displacement and the criminalisation of identity and dissent, have since been expanded and used by the junta against a broader section of Myanmar’s civil society. Today the junta targets not only particular ethnic or religious groups but anyone who stands outside, or stands up to, military control—pro-democracy activists, journalists, human rights defenders, teachers, doctors, nurses and aid workers. The common denominator is no longer faith or ethnicity; it is defiance, independence and the mere refusal to submit to a brutal military regime. The civilians’ bravery in the face of this is astonishing.
The humanitarian picture today is dire. Millions of people are internally displaced, and entire communities have been cut off from food, healthcare and shelter. Civilian infrastructure has been deliberately attacked; aid is obstructed; local humanitarian workers are criminalised; and starvation and displacement are used as weapons of war. This is a political strategy and a man-made humanitarian crisis, which brings me to the international response, particularly the UK’s. The case for action could not be clearer. There is an urgent need for cross-border humanitarian aid, for sustained support to local partners and for far less deference to junta permission that is never given in good faith.
However, the Government’s cuts to the aid budget, with spending projected to fall to 0.3% of national income by 2027—the lowest level this century—pose dire problems for Myanmar. Four years on from the coup, 22 million people require humanitarian assistance. That rise in need has also been partly driven by overlapping crises, such as the devastating earthquake this year. The Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has warned that 16 million people now require lifesaving assistance and protection, yet the programme budget for Myanmar fell in 2025-26 to £47 million.
The international response is failing to keep pace with the need. The UN humanitarian response plan for Myanmar is only 17% funded, a dramatic fall from the already inadequate 36% reached at the end of 2024. Does the Minister have plans to increase the assistance to Myanmar? Where does Myanmar sit in the bilateral priority list of the FCDO, and does that not underscore the point? Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine, Yemen, Bangladesh and Myanmar—I could go on and on. In the midst of all this conflict, why are the Government now cutting aid to such a low level? The Government must get back to their legal commitment of 0.7%. As the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) said, to pile conflict upon conflict makes us less secure.
The UN has found localisation extremely difficult, unlike the UK and FCDO, whose localised approach is very welcome. The UN agencies themselves acknowledge that Myanmar is a context in which local actors are indispensable, because international access is so severely restricted. Military interference through visa delays, travel authorisation refusals and access constraints has significantly hampered UN operations since the coup.
The UK has avoided some of those obstacles by consistently supporting a localised approach—funding local actors outside the UN system, working through intermediaries and supporting informal delivery models, as well as working with local partners, including in areas beyond military control. The Liberal Democrats strongly support that approach. However, continued cuts to funding will inevitably undermine localisation, particularly when local actors are left without sufficient backing from the UN system. Can the Minister lay out how that support will continue?
The Government’s sanctions regime also reflects a troubling lack of urgency. Sanctions have been piecemeal, slow and insufficiently co-ordinated with international partners. We need the Government to co-ordinate and enforce a new round of targeted sanctions, to cut the flow of funds and arms to the junta in Myanmar and of the aviation fuel that enables the military there to conduct airstrikes against civilians.
Key economic enablers of the junta remain untouched, while accountability for atrocity crimes remains distant and uncertain. If we are serious about protecting religious minorities and about defending democracy and civilian life, that must change. The Government must support international accountability efforts and name those responsible for atrocities, rather than hiding behind diplomatic caution. Why will the Government not expel Myanmar’s military attaché as the representative of a regime committing war crimes? Given that the UK remains the penholder on Myanmar at the UN Security Council, it is in a unique position to lead the global response to the crisis in the country.
It is disappointing how little sustained attention the crisis receives, both internationally and in this House—the only substantive debate about it in this Parliament followed the Government’s own statement on the earthquake. Will the Government seek a new resolution on Myanmar at the Security Council to stop attacks on civilians and on religious freedom?
The Government have stated that they stand in solidarity with those calling for a return to democracy in Myanmar and they have urged the military regime to engage in dialogue with opposition groups representing the Myanmar people, including the national unity Government. I would welcome an update from the Minister on what engagement has taken place with pro-democracy actors, including the national unity Government, and on what steps the UK has taken to support efforts to achieve a ceasefire so that humanitarian aid can reach those who need it most.
Finally, if the junta were to fall—we have heard today how weak it is—is the UK prepared politically and operationally, with the requisite resource to respond quickly, to scale up humanitarian assistance and help support a civilian-led democratic transition in Myanmar?
The persecution of religious minorities in Myanmar is not a side issue but a warning—a warning about what happens when authoritarian regimes learn that the world will look away: first from one group, then from everyone else. We owe it to the Rohingya, Christians and other religious minorities in Myanmar, and to the millions of ordinary people in the country who continue so bravely and against all odds to resist repression and to hope for a different future, to take action. We must stand with them, not step back.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.
Like other Members, I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate and on his long-standing and tireless commitment to defending freedom of religion and belief around the world. This debate is the latest example of those efforts. Once again, he has brought before the House an issue of grave moral urgency and deep international concern, which too often escapes the sustained attention of hon. Members across this House. For that, he deserves our sincere thanks.
In my capacity as a shadow foreign affairs Minister, I have stood in this very place on a number of occasions to raise the vital importance of defending freedom of religion and belief. Sadly, it is abundantly clear that the assault on the right to believe, to worship or simply to think freely is not receding. I regret to say that in many parts of the world it is intensifying, and Myanmar is the most tragic and alarming example of that. It is, sadly, a depressing way to start 2026: to hear that such tragic circumstances in a country continue in the second quarter of this century.
However, I find it reassuring that today we have heard from MPs from about six different political groups who all had the common theme of wanting to see the tragedy in Myanmar end. I thank all Members who have helped to play a part in that process over many years, some of whom have spoken today.
The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) spoke about the importance of upholding the rights of religious minorities and about the need for international action in Myanmar. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) hit on a very important point about the motivation behind all this, so there are still questions to be answered. Why is there such severe repression against religious minorities in that country? The hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who served as a Minister until recently and who worked on this issue as a shadow Minister, spoke about the fragile situation on the border with Bangladesh and the importance of remembering that issue as part of the overall tragedy taking place in Myanmar.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for highlighting that the issue is not about one religion; it is about all religions that are persecuted. Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians are all being persecuted, and he particularly highlighted the plight of the Rohingya. I was not aware that the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) had been so involved in the Burma Campaign over the years. I commend him for that. He also spoke about the appalling humanitarian crisis and the tragic failure of the global community to highlight it more seriously. We look at so many other issues going on in the world, but we rarely talk about that. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), made a similar point.
Finally, the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) spoke about erasing identity and culture—exactly what is happening in Myanmar today—and Burmese nationalism. I think there is unity among all Members this afternoon, but there is a lot more to be said on this. Religious persecution is at the very centre of the wider conflict taking place in Myanmar. The military junta has deliberately targeted religious minorities—whether they are Muslims, Christians or others, as hon. Members this afternoon have mentioned—simply because of their faith, identity and ethnicity, which are so deeply intertwined in that country. The result is a campaign of terror that has displaced millions of innocent people and destroyed so many places of worship.
Independent human rights organisations such as Fortify Rights have documented deliberate aerial attacks on civilian infrastructure, including schools, churches and hospitals, in the run-up to the sham elections, blatantly indicating how systematic and widespread the military junta’s violence is. The latest report shows multiple airstrikes targeting civilian areas, many of which may constitute war crimes under international law.
Muslim communities, particularly the Rohingya, continue to suffer what many have rightly described as crimes against humanity. Hundreds of thousands remain in refugee camps in Bangladesh, a nation that has its own international issues to overcome, while those still inside Myanmar endure what Human Rights Watch has described as apartheid-like conditions, arbitrary detention and systematic deprivation of their most basic human rights.
Christians, too, often from ethnic minority communities and most starkly in Chin state, have been brutally targeted. Churches have been bombed, clergy have been killed and congregations have been forced to flee into jungles or makeshift displacement camps. Nor has Myanmar’s religious and cultural patrimony been spared, with historic cathedrals and churches damaged or destroyed in a deliberate attempt to erase identity as well as faith. That amounts to a sustained pattern of persecution carried out by the Tatmadaw armed forces with impunity.
As a country, and particularly in this place, we cannot look at Myanmar without recognising our own historical connections to that country. During the period of British administration, Burma was, as it remains today, home to a remarkable tapestry of peoples, languages and faiths. In its latter years as a Crown colony, there was at least a recognition, imperfect though it was, that diverse communities could co-exist under the protection of shared institutions and the rule of law. That pluralism was and is very much still being violently dismantled by the current regime. The very sense of cultural multiplicity that once defined Burma is now treated by the military junta as a threat to be eradicated. That should matter to us in Britain, given our role in establishing what is now Myanmar but, perhaps more importantly, because Britain’s standing in the world rests on our willingness to uphold the values that helped to hold that country together, with the borders that it still has today, in the first place.
I acknowledge that the United Kingdom, under Governments of both colours, has taken a strong stance on Myanmar. Successive statements at the United Nations have rightly condemned the violence and reaffirmed support for freedom of religion or belief. However, we all know that in the second quarter of the 21st century, eloquent statements in international forums are not enough when entire communities are being erased before our eyes. The International Court of Justice case involving the Rohingya continues at a glacial pace while atrocities persist on the ground, so I say this to the Minister: what further support are the UK Government providing to the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar to ensure that evidence is preserved and that perpetrators are identified and, we hope, brought to justice?
Beyond judicial mechanisms, what discussions has the United Kingdom had with counterparts in the region, particularly countries such as China and India, to ensure that those responsible, particularly within Myanmar’s military leadership, face real political and diplomatic pressure today and not at some indeterminate point in the future? Action is required immediately. Despite the UK’s imposition of sanctions, including on aviation fuel suppliers, airstrikes against religious sites continue. Does the Minister believe that the current sanctions regime is sufficient, or should we go further? What concrete steps are being taken to close the loopholes—particularly on jet fuel, arms transfers and financial flows—that continue to enable these atrocious attacks?
The UK Government rightly state that freedom of religion or belief is a core human rights priority, but how is that reflected specifically in our Myanmar policy? Is there a dedicated strategy to support persecuted religious minorities both in Myanmar and among refugee populations in neighbouring countries? We know that aid is being deliberately blocked from reaching displaced religious minorities, particularly in ethnic and Christian-majority areas, so what pressure are the UK Government exerting, bilaterally and through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches those for whom it is intended, without interference or manipulation from the junta?
Will the UK Government commit to raising once again at the UN Security Council the crisis facing religious minorities in Myanmar? Will the Minister work with international partners to build a stronger coalition in defence of freedom of religion or belief across south and south-east Asia more broadly? We have seen the United States take a strong stand in defence of persecuted Christians in countries such as Nigeria, and the US Congress’s work on freedom of religion or belief in Myanmar. Although the findings are grim, they have been instructive, so what discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in Washington? Is she pressing for deeper American engagement on this issue?
The United Kingdom has long been a world leader on freedom of religion or belief. When dealing with religious regions that have modern political foundations tracing back in part to this very building, I believe that we have a particular responsibility to show leadership—if not for the sake of those suffering today, to ensure that Britain is seen not as an irrelevant observer in global affairs, but as a nation that still stands up for justice, freedom and the rule of law, as our forebears have always done.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I ask the Minister to leave at least two minutes at the end of the debate for the mover to wind up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and powerful contributions.
As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), said, there has been real consensus across the House today. With the continuing horror of the situation in Myanmar, it is important that we have a strong sense of our responsibilities in the international community. Given Britain’s history with Burma, we must do all we can to support Myanmar to move forward to a more positive future and to keep hope alive.
The persecution of religious minorities and the freedom of religion and belief are important areas that go across the work of the Foreign Office. Indeed, earlier this week I met our special envoy for freedom of religion or belief to talk about the overall strategy, and why it is so important that we uphold these values and continue to be champions for freedom of religion or belief across the world. I will respond to as many as possible of the points that have been raised today, but first I will make a few opening points.
First, religious persecution in Myanmar is a grave violation of fundamental human rights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) powerfully stated, we must speak with one voice in condemning these injustices and must work together to ensure accountability and protection for the most vulnerable, so let me say that the UK remains steadfast in its commitment to defending the freedom of religion and belief for all. As hon. Members have rightly highlighted, Myanmar’s religious minorities have faced decades of persecution, from discriminatory laws such as the 1982 citizenship law to long-standing restrictions on worship, on movement and on citizenship. Indeed, since the coup in 2021, religious freedoms have deteriorated even further. This debate has raised the issues of attacks on religious sites, confiscations of places of worship, widespread destruction, families torn apart and communities displaced.
The regime continues to exploit religious tensions, particularly in southern Shan and Rakhine, where ethnoreligious nationalism fuels hostility, particularly towards Christian and Muslim minorities. We are also seeing the military weaponising online spaces to spread hate. The UN’s independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar has highlighted how disinformation has driven identity-based violence, including against the Rohingya, as the hon. Member for Strangford has referred to. For the first time, we have seen brutal violations taking place in predominantly Buddhist regions. Sagaing is now one of the hardest-hit areas, facing daily airstrikes, village burnings and mass displacement.
In the face of those challenges, I want to address some of the points that were raised in the debate, particularly around the support we are giving. It is the case that, in the light of unprecedented global humanitarian need and the current fiscal situation, the UK has adjusted its annual official development assistance allocations. However, the plight of those in need and fleeing Myanmar remains a UK priority.
In 2024-25, the UK increased humanitarian support to Myanmar to £66.5 million, and the UK is providing £80 million this financial year. This year, as we provide that £80 million in lifesaving humanitarian assistance, we are supporting emergency healthcare and education for the most vulnerable. We are also working very closely with faith-based organisations, which are trusted actors with deep community ties that are often first on the scene in crises.
UK-funded education initiatives are helping to make schools more inclusive by supporting minority languages and cultures, so that every child feels able to learn. It is important to reiterate the point that no UK aid goes to the Myanmar military. This year, through the John Bunyan fund, we have supported organisations that tackle hate speech, misinformation and online harms that drive discrimination and violence. We have also trained religious and community leaders to challenge harmful narratives, strengthen civil society and develop practical tools to help communities respond.
Jim Shannon
Just one thing to confirm, Minister, and I think it is something that each and every one of us who has spoken has raised: we have all highlighted the issue that the aid the Government are sending to Myanmar is not getting to the refugees, that the junta—the military—is stopping it and is an obstacle to it getting there. We are all seeking an assurance that the aid will get to the refugees, which is where it is needed, and that the junta will not try to stop it. Please.
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member is right to highlight what the junta continues to try to do. That is why it is incredibly important that we are continuing to work to make sure that humanitarian aid is not prevented from reaching where it needs to go. It is also why it is so important that we continue to work with local organisations and actors on the ground, so that we are able, as much as possible, to reach the frontline through trusted organisations with deep community ties. I am happy to continue dialogue with the hon. Member on how we are working in Myanmar on these very difficult challenges.
I also want to mention the incredibly important role that Bangladesh is playing, and to commend Bangladesh for the accommodation of 1 million refugees. We know the challenge that has been. The UK is the second largest donor to the Rohingya crisis response in Bangladesh, contributing £447 million since 2017, including an additional £27 million announced in September, just a few months ago.
My colleague Baroness Chapman was fairly recently in Bangladesh, talking to the Government, visiting Cox’s Bazar and looking at what more can be done to support further skills development and other productive activity for those in the refugee camps. She also looked at how we can keep alive the hope that it will one day be safe for return, and how we continue to work as an international community towards that future.
Over 150,000 Rohingya in Myanmar, however, have been confined to camps for over a decade, with no freedom of movement, no civil liberties and limited access to services. Since 2017, the UK has provided £57 million in assistance to Rohingya communities in Rakhine, delivering water, food, cash, sanitation and health support. We continue to press the regime to stop attacks on communities and places of worship.
Sanctions have been raised by a number of colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), who I want to thank for catching me in the House in relation to this issue. Since the coup, we have imposed sanctions on 25 individuals and 39 entities, including those responsible for human rights violations. We are using our role at the United Nations Security Council to keep this firmly on the agenda. At our last meeting, we condemned attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure.
We also continue to keep all evidence and potential designations under close review. It would not be appropriate to speculate in this debate about potential future sanctions and designations, as to do so could reduce their impact. However, I say to my hon. Friend and other Members that we are clear that sanctions remain an important tool to maintain pressure on the Myanmar military. Since the coup, the sanctions that I mentioned have targeted the regime’s access to finance, arms and equipment.
Sir Julian Lewis
The Minister mentioned the UN Security Council, and we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) about what he perceives to be a potential weakness in the regime, which is being propped up by outside forces. Is it true that Russia has been most supportive of the regime, has supplied most of its aerial capability to bomb, strafe and kill civilians, and has been blocking moves against the regime on the Security Council? What assessment have the Government made of the survivability of the regime without military support from Russia?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. I will make some references to the UN Security Council in my further remarks, so I will hopefully be able to address some of his points.
Seema Malhotra
I am concerned about time, so I will continue my remarks.
We continue to raise discrimination against minority communities at the UN Human Rights Council. We also know that pressure alone is not enough, and that there must be accountability, which is essential for breaking the cycle of impunity and violence. That is why the UK has provided over £900,000 to the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar to collect and preserve evidence for future prosecutions. We have also established the Myanmar witness project to verify open-source evidence, and to train civil society organisations to do the same. We will go on to advocate for increased protections for minority groups, and for inclusivity, with opposition actors. That remains critical for a future transition out of conflict, and it is key to delivering the aspirations of the people of Myanmar.
I want to make a couple of remarks. First, in relation to criminal investigations, which the hon. Member for Strangford referenced, the UK is clear that there must be accountability for atrocities committed in Myanmar. We condemn ongoing serious human rights violations by the military regime, and those actions require further scrutiny. The UK is supportive of any attempts to bring those issues before the ICC. We support the prosecutor’s initiative to investigate these acts. It remains our assessment that there is not sufficient support among United Nations Security Council members for an ICC referral, but as penholder on Myanmar at the United Nations Security Council we convened five meetings in 2025 and will continue to maintain international focus on the crisis.
In 2025, the UK submitted written observations to the ICJ in the case brought by Gambia against Myanmar for alleged breaches of the genocide convention, alongside Canada, the Netherlands, France, Germany and Denmark. It remains the UK’s position that a determination of genocide should be made by a competent court or tribunal. The UK’s intervention at the ICJ presents legal arguments regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the genocide convention, and we are closely monitoring these proceedings, which begin on Monday. We reaffirm our commitment to accountability and to the international legal order. We also stress the Court’s vital role in the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Seema Malhotra
I am sorry, but I have to wrap up.
I know that there are matters that I have not been able to address today, but I am sure that we will continue to have these debates. In conclusion, the courage of Myanmar’s communities in the face of persecution must remain at the forefront of our minds. I thank those in the Burma Campaign and others who are here today, who continue to bring a lot of information to Parliament. The UK Government and the UK will continue to stand with Myanmar communities, defending freedom of religion and belief, supporting those at risk and pressing for accountability, and we will continue to work internationally for a more just and peaceful future for Myanmar.
Jim Shannon
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, including those who have now left. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), as always, very clearly highlighted the issue of the Rohingya Muslims; the fragile peace, if it is such a thing as peace; and the fragile conditions in which they live.
We all look forward to contributions from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), because they are always very applicable to the issues. His question was who is behind this and what their purpose is. Quite clearly, the junta is focusing on race and religious beliefs.
It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) in her place. I thank her for her well-known interest in the issue. We can almost see how de-stressed she is as a result of not being the Minister any more, but we very much welcome her contribution. She referred to the need for sanctions, and I will come to that point in a wee minute.
The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) voiced the intelligent thought that the junta is holding power through fear, propped up by others outside. A really important question, which may have been raised in the intervention from the right hon. Member for New Forest East, is “If the junta falters, do we step in or does somebody else?” If the Minister does not mind, perhaps she could come back to us on that point.
The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) told me earlier today about his particular interest in the subject. We thank him for his contribution and his interest for all those years as a Labour party member. He referred to the fact that the elections will not be free or democratic, and to the need for sanctions.
My good friend the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara), who brings great knowledge of the world to these debates, referred to sexual violence. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) spoke about mass killing and economic collapse. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), put things very clearly in his contribution and referred to perpetrators being made accountable.
My very last ask is whether the Government will commit to publishing regular assessments of freedom of religious belief and human rights in Myanmar, using independent monitoring—I think we need an independent person to do that. Once again, I thank the Minister and everyone else for their contributions.