Westminster Hall
Tuesday 8th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 day, 23 hours ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:30
09:30
09:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, sir. Christie's in the world. I believe 180 languages are spoken in our schools, and both Haringey and Barnet councils, together with community partners, have been instrumental in ensuring that our community is a place where discrimination and hatred are rejected and diversity is celebrated. And I'm very proud of the excellent Haringey and Barnet Multi-Faith forums, and I know that the Metropolitan Police Independent Advisory Group in Barnet and Haringey also do great work, and we have members of those different groups today with us in the gallery.
My job is to work with the community to promote Hornsey and Friern Barnet as a beacon of diversity and integration that shines a light on what can be achieved when the whole community comes together, and we have a long and rich history of challenging hate. In 1977, the Battle of Woodgreen at Ducketts Common saw a rainbow coalition led by Jewish, Irish and Black communities unite to drive out the far right National Front. And Councillor Sheila Peacock, now in her 90s, remembers those days very well.
In recent years, Hornsey and Friern Barnet has become a safe haven for those fleeing persecution from Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine and other conflict zones around the world. And later today, I will host a roundtable with High Court, which has its roots in the Kindertransport movement, to discuss support for newly arrived communities. We have a long and rich history of challenging hatred, and that means we stand against anti-Semitism. And, Mr. Chairman, it's been a frightening and dark six months.
On the 2nd of October last year, two Jewish people were killed and three left in a serious condition after a car ramming and stabbing attack outside the Heaton synagogue in Manchester. In March of this year, four ambulances belonging to the Hatzolah Ambulance Service were set on fire in the car park of a synagogue in Golders Green. Hatzolah provides a service for all Londoners responding to thousands of emergencies every year, from minor injuries to life threatening conditions, and they work collaboratively with emergency services like the London Ambulance Service, the London Fire Brigade Helicopter, Emergency Medical Service and the Metropolitan Police to coordinate and provide professional care.
And on the 15th of April we saw an attack on the Finchley Reform Synagogue. Then three days later, Kenton United Synagogue was targeted. On the 27th of April, an arson attack was carried out at a memorial wall in Golders Green. And then later that month, two Jewish men were stabbed in Golders Green. And we know how quickly my honourable friend the member for Finchley and Golders Green acted, and that the former prime minister and outgoing member for Holborn and St Pancras also rushed to the scene to reassure the community.
The Community Safety Trust recorded 3700 antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2025, the second highest ever total reported to the CST in a single year. And this year we have the second highest total ever reported to the CST in the first six months of any year. Sir Christopher, I applied for this debate because the House needs to have a full and frank debate. We need to reassure our constituents, but ourselves, that we're doing all that we possibly can to stamp out the scourge of anti-Semitism.
I want to cover three brief issues, and I am aware that other members wish to come into this debate, and I want to hear from all parts of the UK about what their communities are doing to tackle anti-Semitism. On policing and community cohesion. I welcome the recent government announcement on investment to protect Jewish communities more than 250 million across the next three years, including a further 86 million to the Metropolitan Police, which will fund around 300 additional officers in London to increase police presence.
And that's particularly important for London MPs who understand that when there's an event in central London that needs to be policed, we lose our local police force. So that's really important. And of course.
My job is to work with the community to promote Hornsey and Friern Barnet as a beacon of diversity and integration that shines a light on what can be achieved when the whole community comes together, and we have a long and rich history of challenging hate. In 1977, the Battle of Woodgreen at Ducketts Common saw a rainbow coalition led by Jewish, Irish and Black communities unite to drive out the far right National Front. And Councillor Sheila Peacock, now in her 90s, remembers those days very well.
In recent years, Hornsey and Friern Barnet has become a safe haven for those fleeing persecution from Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine and other conflict zones around the world. And later today, I will host a roundtable with High Court, which has its roots in the Kindertransport movement, to discuss support for newly arrived communities. We have a long and rich history of challenging hatred, and that means we stand against anti-Semitism. And, Mr. Chairman, it's been a frightening and dark six months.
On the 2nd of October last year, two Jewish people were killed and three left in a serious condition after a car ramming and stabbing attack outside the Heaton synagogue in Manchester. In March of this year, four ambulances belonging to the Hatzolah Ambulance Service were set on fire in the car park of a synagogue in Golders Green. Hatzolah provides a service for all Londoners responding to thousands of emergencies every year, from minor injuries to life threatening conditions, and they work collaboratively with emergency services like the London Ambulance Service, the London Fire Brigade Helicopter, Emergency Medical Service and the Metropolitan Police to coordinate and provide professional care.
And on the 15th of April we saw an attack on the Finchley Reform Synagogue. Then three days later, Kenton United Synagogue was targeted. On the 27th of April, an arson attack was carried out at a memorial wall in Golders Green. And then later that month, two Jewish men were stabbed in Golders Green. And we know how quickly my honourable friend the member for Finchley and Golders Green acted, and that the former prime minister and outgoing member for Holborn and St Pancras also rushed to the scene to reassure the community.
The Community Safety Trust recorded 3700 antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2025, the second highest ever total reported to the CST in a single year. And this year we have the second highest total ever reported to the CST in the first six months of any year. Sir Christopher, I applied for this debate because the House needs to have a full and frank debate. We need to reassure our constituents, but ourselves, that we're doing all that we possibly can to stamp out the scourge of anti-Semitism.
I want to cover three brief issues, and I am aware that other members wish to come into this debate, and I want to hear from all parts of the UK about what their communities are doing to tackle anti-Semitism. On policing and community cohesion. I welcome the recent government announcement on investment to protect Jewish communities more than 250 million across the next three years, including a further 86 million to the Metropolitan Police, which will fund around 300 additional officers in London to increase police presence.
And that's particularly important for London MPs who understand that when there's an event in central London that needs to be policed, we lose our local police force. So that's really important. And of course.
09:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think the member for giving way. My local police force in Elmbridge worked very closely with my two synagogues, North West Surrey Synagogue and also Kingston Liberal Synagogue, to make them feel supported. But they in turn call out the work of the Community Security Trust, whose headquarters I've been to and are so impressive. And you can see there the necessity of what they do. So would my. The honourable member agree with me that we need a commitment to fund them at the level they are at the moment, if not more, if it is necessary.
09:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I thank the honourable member for her intervention, and I'm very aware from a number of people who have written to me since this debate was granted, to say that the resourcing point is crucial to this debate. Now, we've got over 500 additional officers across England and Wales boosting security around schools, synagogues and community centres. And it's deeply upsetting to have mothers say to you, as the MP, why does my daughter say to me, mummy, why are there so many police outside my school?
09:35
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Yes . , lady, for giving way. And I agree with the comment of my hon. Friend from Esher and Walton. Although members of the Jewish community say to me, we don't want to build ever higher walls, and my hon. Friend the member for Richmond Park and I had the most harrowing meeting with children and young people who attend Richmond synagogue in my local borough, who told us about the terrible experiences of bullying, both physical, verbal.
At school, university students, all of whom are having to hide their faith. Does she agree with me? Nobody should have to hide their faith. And Sir David Bell, who's doing a review for the government on anti-Semitism in schools, is saying that headteachers are telling him for Jewish faith schools, security comes ahead of education. That can't be right, can it?
At school, university students, all of whom are having to hide their faith. Does she agree with me? Nobody should have to hide their faith. And Sir David Bell, who's doing a review for the government on anti-Semitism in schools, is saying that headteachers are telling him for Jewish faith schools, security comes ahead of education. That can't be right, can it?
09:35
09:36
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I appreciate the honourable friend's speech, and I also appreciate in particular , her reference to what happened at Kenton Synagogue, which serves the people of Harrow. In part, she's referenced many of the physical manifestations of anti-Semitism. Can I draw her attention to the issue of online anti-Semitism? We expect increasingly Ofcom to police the very worst of social media. Isn't it time we had some clear measures of success that we can hold the Online Safety Act and Ofcom to to account so that if we are still not seeing a reduction in anti-Semitism online, we can consider what further steps are necessary to really crack down on this source of anti-Semitism.
09:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
He makes an excellent point, and I go on in my second point before the final one to talk about the online online world, which is indeed a very frightening place for many of us. Policing and community cohesion are at the heart of ensuring that everyone in this country feels safe. The late John Hume, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate and former member of this House, said our differences are what make us special and should never be a cause for conflict.
The answer to difference is to respect it. Therein lies the most fundamental principle of peace respect for diversity and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and local councils up and down the country do excellent work with programmes on tackling division and building bridges between communities. But I think in some communities we're better at that than others because we're seeing the the response where that sort of day to day confidence building in all the communities we serve is not happening and is absent, of course.
The answer to difference is to respect it. Therein lies the most fundamental principle of peace respect for diversity and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and local councils up and down the country do excellent work with programmes on tackling division and building bridges between communities. But I think in some communities we're better at that than others because we're seeing the the response where that sort of day to day confidence building in all the communities we serve is not happening and is absent, of course.
09:37
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I thank the honourable lady for letting me give way. Earlier this year, I met the Suffolk Liberal Jewish Society who thought there was a organisation thriving in the genteel countryside of Suffolk. So on your point about anti-Semitism across the country, would she join me in paying tribute to these small organisations that go out of their way to combat anti-Semitism and support Jewish communities across the entire UK?
09:38
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I would indeed, and I wish there were more of them, because that's the real heart of education. It's all very well having teachers teaching, but what we need is the community response, so it's embedded within our communities and I thank him for taking an interest in the Suffolk organisation. So we know also in terms of what's being supported at a resource level for local government, more than £2 million to over 200 grassroots organisations through an award called The Common Ground, bringing together people from different backgrounds together to build trust and to find common ground.
And then, of course, what we hear a lot about in this House is Pride in place, the £5.8 billion funding , which promotes community leadership, making local politics count. And that doesn't just mean local politicians. That means us in this House, going to events, promoting community cohesion, standing up when something is wrong and promoting the right way of doing things. The Mayor of London has also been proactive, investing £17 million in initiatives to tackle hate crime.
Since the shared Endeavour Fund started in 2020, it supported 138 projects across the capital and worked with over 220,000 participants, including projects focused specifically on countering anti-Semitism. And here I would mention the work of schools in Barnet, where it's not necessarily where their mainstream schools, but they come together to listen to the stories of head teachers in Jewish schools so that we can share experiences and so that we can cross-pollinate those ideas so that all children across any local authority area are hearing best practice in tackling anti-Semitism and hatred.
Now, briefly, on the point of countering digital hate, we know that the centre for Countering Digital Hate shows a repeated pattern where real world attacks on Jewish communities are followed by targeted abuse, calls for further violence and antisemitic conspiracy theories online. I welcome the Online Safety Act, including measures to ensure technology companies remove illegal content, including anti-Semitic material, but we do need to ensure that it's effective. CCDH has research into ten leading AI chat bots found that 8 in 10 chat bots would assist users to plan a violent attack, including attacks on places of worship like synagogues, and 9 in 10 failed to reliably discourage them.
This is shocking. Following the Manchester synagogue attack, CDF identified 171 hateful or violent online replies targeting 13 prominent British Jewish accounts. All remained live when checked. The 100 most viewed posts falsely alleging that Israel or Jewish people orchestrated the attack and that received 568,708 views and none displaced, displayed a dissenting community note following the stabbing of two Jewish men in Golders Green. CCDH identified 130 online hateful replies directed at ten prominent British Jewish individuals and organisations.
All remained live when checked. The 100 most viewed false flag conspiracy posts received 252,954 views, again without a single dissenting community. Note how do people know what's the truth when they read online? C c, d h research found that 11 Instagram accounts posted posting anti-Semitic and racist material accumulated 1.5 billion views while directing users to shops selling hateful merchandise. All 11 were also promoted through Instagram's Related Accounts feature.
Are we sure that the existing legal framework is enough to stamp out online anti-Semitism? Finally, Sir Christopher, education on the dangers of extremism is so important, and good education and the outcomes of good education so difficult to achieve. I welcome the government's 7 million to tackle antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities. And as the honourable member mentioned, Sir David Bell's review will look into the support available to schools and colleges. How well schools and colleges use their policies to make decisions and handle hateful, hate filled incidents.
How they're accountable if they fail to handle an incident well. What schools and colleges can do to prevent anti-Semitism, including identifying and tackling issues really early on, and the role and influence of campaigning organisations external to the schools and colleges, and how they can have an influence on school and college decision making. I look forward to reading the review, but most importantly, I look forward to the implementation of practical actions to combat anti-Semitism, which stemmed from this review and early intervention is key.
To sum up, Sir Christopher, my request of the minister are simple. Every member of this House and communities and families up and down the country need to be reassured that the government is leaving no stone unturned to ensure that Jewish communities are safe. To ensure that we're doing everything we can to stamp out online hate, and to ensure that we're tackling anti-Semitism at its roots through work in schools. And finally, I would leave a positive image with the House, which is the retired Jewish MP whose daughter from the local synagogue planted an olive tree with our.
A steamed stand in. Deputy Lieutenant Bibi Khan, who leads at the Wightman Road mosque. And that was a symbol of our communities. Together we dig the garden, we plant the tree, the roots take shape, and we watch it grow tall. Thank you.
And then, of course, what we hear a lot about in this House is Pride in place, the £5.8 billion funding , which promotes community leadership, making local politics count. And that doesn't just mean local politicians. That means us in this House, going to events, promoting community cohesion, standing up when something is wrong and promoting the right way of doing things. The Mayor of London has also been proactive, investing £17 million in initiatives to tackle hate crime.
Since the shared Endeavour Fund started in 2020, it supported 138 projects across the capital and worked with over 220,000 participants, including projects focused specifically on countering anti-Semitism. And here I would mention the work of schools in Barnet, where it's not necessarily where their mainstream schools, but they come together to listen to the stories of head teachers in Jewish schools so that we can share experiences and so that we can cross-pollinate those ideas so that all children across any local authority area are hearing best practice in tackling anti-Semitism and hatred.
Now, briefly, on the point of countering digital hate, we know that the centre for Countering Digital Hate shows a repeated pattern where real world attacks on Jewish communities are followed by targeted abuse, calls for further violence and antisemitic conspiracy theories online. I welcome the Online Safety Act, including measures to ensure technology companies remove illegal content, including anti-Semitic material, but we do need to ensure that it's effective. CCDH has research into ten leading AI chat bots found that 8 in 10 chat bots would assist users to plan a violent attack, including attacks on places of worship like synagogues, and 9 in 10 failed to reliably discourage them.
This is shocking. Following the Manchester synagogue attack, CDF identified 171 hateful or violent online replies targeting 13 prominent British Jewish accounts. All remained live when checked. The 100 most viewed posts falsely alleging that Israel or Jewish people orchestrated the attack and that received 568,708 views and none displaced, displayed a dissenting community note following the stabbing of two Jewish men in Golders Green. CCDH identified 130 online hateful replies directed at ten prominent British Jewish individuals and organisations.
All remained live when checked. The 100 most viewed false flag conspiracy posts received 252,954 views, again without a single dissenting community. Note how do people know what's the truth when they read online? C c, d h research found that 11 Instagram accounts posted posting anti-Semitic and racist material accumulated 1.5 billion views while directing users to shops selling hateful merchandise. All 11 were also promoted through Instagram's Related Accounts feature.
Are we sure that the existing legal framework is enough to stamp out online anti-Semitism? Finally, Sir Christopher, education on the dangers of extremism is so important, and good education and the outcomes of good education so difficult to achieve. I welcome the government's 7 million to tackle antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities. And as the honourable member mentioned, Sir David Bell's review will look into the support available to schools and colleges. How well schools and colleges use their policies to make decisions and handle hateful, hate filled incidents.
How they're accountable if they fail to handle an incident well. What schools and colleges can do to prevent anti-Semitism, including identifying and tackling issues really early on, and the role and influence of campaigning organisations external to the schools and colleges, and how they can have an influence on school and college decision making. I look forward to reading the review, but most importantly, I look forward to the implementation of practical actions to combat anti-Semitism, which stemmed from this review and early intervention is key.
To sum up, Sir Christopher, my request of the minister are simple. Every member of this House and communities and families up and down the country need to be reassured that the government is leaving no stone unturned to ensure that Jewish communities are safe. To ensure that we're doing everything we can to stamp out online hate, and to ensure that we're tackling anti-Semitism at its roots through work in schools. And finally, I would leave a positive image with the House, which is the retired Jewish MP whose daughter from the local synagogue planted an olive tree with our.
A steamed stand in. Deputy Lieutenant Bibi Khan, who leads at the Wightman Road mosque. And that was a symbol of our communities. Together we dig the garden, we plant the tree, the roots take shape, and we watch it grow tall. Thank you.
09:44
09:44
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
A big thank you to the honourable lady for Hornsey and Friern Barnet for for bringing the debate to this House, and I thank her for that and thank her for highlighting this issue. I rise today to speak on a matter that touches the very core of our shared humanity. Freedom of religion and democratic values, the safety and security of our Jewish community. As a member for Strangford, I've never hidden where I stand. I am an unapologetic friend of Israel.
Whilst I may not agree with every move of the Israeli government at all times, I will always stand up in this House against those who seek to bully or delegitimize the Jewish state, but don't have to share my geopolitical views to recognise that what is happening to Jewish people on our streets is an absolute disgrace. The honourable Lady has underlined that. I congratulate her and setting out an incredibly well. The stats paint a picture. Community Security Trust recorded nearly 2000 antisemitic incidents across the United Kingdom in the first six months of 2026 alone, making it the second highest first half of a year ever recorded.
We are seeing levels of online hate alongside physical assaults, threats and the desecration of Jewish property. This is not a temporary surge. It's becoming a terrifying new normal. And that's what the new normal is. A new normal has to be stopped. And I look forward very much to the to the minister's response and and what government and the minister will do to address this issue. Of course, we see the spillover of this poison right here in Northern Ireland, where global political tensions are being used to justify systematic exclusion.
And we look back to to Londonderry, what had happened just a few days ago for young Israeli triathletes were forced out of the European Triathlon Cup, the local hosting group in the North West Triathlon Club club openly declared that they could not support the participation of the Israeli athletes, arguing that their presence would normalise Israel on the international sporting stage. Very happy to have.
Whilst I may not agree with every move of the Israeli government at all times, I will always stand up in this House against those who seek to bully or delegitimize the Jewish state, but don't have to share my geopolitical views to recognise that what is happening to Jewish people on our streets is an absolute disgrace. The honourable Lady has underlined that. I congratulate her and setting out an incredibly well. The stats paint a picture. Community Security Trust recorded nearly 2000 antisemitic incidents across the United Kingdom in the first six months of 2026 alone, making it the second highest first half of a year ever recorded.
We are seeing levels of online hate alongside physical assaults, threats and the desecration of Jewish property. This is not a temporary surge. It's becoming a terrifying new normal. And that's what the new normal is. A new normal has to be stopped. And I look forward very much to the to the minister's response and and what government and the minister will do to address this issue. Of course, we see the spillover of this poison right here in Northern Ireland, where global political tensions are being used to justify systematic exclusion.
And we look back to to Londonderry, what had happened just a few days ago for young Israeli triathletes were forced out of the European Triathlon Cup, the local hosting group in the North West Triathlon Club club openly declared that they could not support the participation of the Israeli athletes, arguing that their presence would normalise Israel on the international sporting stage. Very happy to have.
09:46
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I thank the honourable member for giving way. And just on that incident, which happened in my city that happened just at the weekend where Jewish athletes from Israel were forced to withdraw from the triathlon as a result of the hate filled bile of some of these hard left bigots that complain about the far right. But we have to be consistent in terms of any criticism and calling out of violent rhetoric, whether it's on the right or the left.
And this anti-Semitic terrorism has to be called out and hopefully prevented in the future.
And this anti-Semitic terrorism has to be called out and hopefully prevented in the future.
09:47
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I thank my honourable friend for his intervention. And I did see him on the on the media, TV and radio over the weekend speaking out specifically on this issue. But there's something wrong with the North West Triathlon Club, who they openly declare that they could not support the participation of the Israeli athletes because the local organisers refuse to back them. That's the N WTC. And with the protests looming, the Israeli Triathlon Association were backed into a corner and forced to ask the World Triathlon to remove the athletes for their own physical safety and absolute disgrace.
That organisations should do that in Londonderry of all places, but to do it anywhere in the United Kingdom, the ITA is now actively and rightly considering legal action over what they rightfully describe as discriminatory treatment. When a sporting body, so called allows local political pressure to dictate who can stand on a starting line. The very purpose and integrity of international sport are destroyed. It mirrors the hostility we saw in Belfast city centre, where an Israeli television news crew was physically assaulted.
Why? Because they were Israelis, because they were Jewish, leaving a cameraman injured simply because of his nationality. The extreme terrorism and attacks upon Israelis are a potential tax upon Israelis in Northern Ireland worries me greatly. I'm very happy to. Yes.
That organisations should do that in Londonderry of all places, but to do it anywhere in the United Kingdom, the ITA is now actively and rightly considering legal action over what they rightfully describe as discriminatory treatment. When a sporting body, so called allows local political pressure to dictate who can stand on a starting line. The very purpose and integrity of international sport are destroyed. It mirrors the hostility we saw in Belfast city centre, where an Israeli television news crew was physically assaulted.
Why? Because they were Israelis, because they were Jewish, leaving a cameraman injured simply because of his nationality. The extreme terrorism and attacks upon Israelis are a potential tax upon Israelis in Northern Ireland worries me greatly. I'm very happy to. Yes.
09:48
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. When. When the Labour Party went through a terrible time of anti-Semitism crisis, he was a staunch friend of the Jewish members of my party, and I know that many of them remember him fondly for that. But I think what he's highlighting most starkly is this isn't about Jewish people living less Jewish lives. This is about Jewish people living less public lives for fear of having to constantly worry about what questions they will be asked about geopolitical issues far outside their own sphere of influence or interest.
And therefore, we have a less rich society because people that can make those contributions don't participate. And I'm sure he would agree with me. Religious freedom, our ability to have a diverse culture, but also, if we get to a point where people just retreat from public spaces, we vacate those spaces for people that have much more nefarious intent.
And therefore, we have a less rich society because people that can make those contributions don't participate. And I'm sure he would agree with me. Religious freedom, our ability to have a diverse culture, but also, if we get to a point where people just retreat from public spaces, we vacate those spaces for people that have much more nefarious intent.
09:49
09:49
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I thank my honourable friend for that intervention. He he rightly and very well described the issue, and it's about people of Jewish faith, those of us really nationality only able to have their normal lives. The very things that the honourable gentleman is referring to. I agree with my right hon. Friend the DUP leader who hit the nail on the head when he said strong opinions on Middle Eastern conflicts that can never, ever justify hatred, intimidation or violence against Israeli or Jewish people.
And having witnessed where identity based hatred leads in my country, we must reject it completely. My right hon. Friend the member for Belfast East was right to call out the offensive delays in removing hostile slogans, such as the graffiti targeting staff at the Royal Victoria Hospital. That's happened as well. Just three examples of hatred to people who are Israelis, who are Jewish in their work, in their play and in their normal lives.
The Belfast Jewish community are our valued neighbours. As the deputy chair of the Belfast Jewish Community recently warned, these incidents risk branding our region with a reputation for unchecked hostility. So we must uphold their freedom from persecution and guarantee their safety. So I conclude with this, Sir Christopher. I urge the Minister to ensure robust support for the PSNI and the authorities to protect places of worship, clear our streets of intimidation, ensure international sport remains open to all without political vetting, and keep our communities safe.
And government must acknowledge the problem and seek to find a solution. My answer to the minister is this. Will the minister liaise with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, with the PSNI, the police force dedicated for safety for all the people in Northern Ireland, that Jewish people are under the cosh as time that government here and government back home and the PSNI stepped up and ensured that Israelis and Jewish people have the freedom to have a normal life.
The very thing that we want them to have.
And having witnessed where identity based hatred leads in my country, we must reject it completely. My right hon. Friend the member for Belfast East was right to call out the offensive delays in removing hostile slogans, such as the graffiti targeting staff at the Royal Victoria Hospital. That's happened as well. Just three examples of hatred to people who are Israelis, who are Jewish in their work, in their play and in their normal lives.
The Belfast Jewish community are our valued neighbours. As the deputy chair of the Belfast Jewish Community recently warned, these incidents risk branding our region with a reputation for unchecked hostility. So we must uphold their freedom from persecution and guarantee their safety. So I conclude with this, Sir Christopher. I urge the Minister to ensure robust support for the PSNI and the authorities to protect places of worship, clear our streets of intimidation, ensure international sport remains open to all without political vetting, and keep our communities safe.
And government must acknowledge the problem and seek to find a solution. My answer to the minister is this. Will the minister liaise with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, with the PSNI, the police force dedicated for safety for all the people in Northern Ireland, that Jewish people are under the cosh as time that government here and government back home and the PSNI stepped up and ensured that Israelis and Jewish people have the freedom to have a normal life.
The very thing that we want them to have.
09:51
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you. Thank you. It's a pleasure to be on. Sir Christopher. Do you congratulate the honourable member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet for securing this important debate? I do not speak today as a member of the Jewish community or as somebody who can fully understand the experience that many British Jews live with every day. But I have seen a small snapshot of it from my time at Leeds University throughout my continuing engagement ever since with the Jewish community.
Now at university, I saw some of the challenges faced by Jewish students on campus, and more recently I did speak at the Leeds Leeds Against Antisemitism demonstration, where I heard directly from members of the community about the challenges that they're enduring now, particularly in recent years. But this is a long standing problem. As many members will know now, I will return to the experience of Jewish students later because I think what's happening on our campuses tells us something important about the wider problems we're facing.
But the Jewish community in Britain is facing a profound crisis of safety and security. It is profound. It cannot be said often enough that the first duty of government should always be the safety and security of its citizens. We hear it often enough in the chamber, but it needs to be said again. And that means the responsibility for protecting the Jewish community can't rest with the community itself. It can't. Nor should Jewish organisations be expected to shoulder this burden alone.
CST are amazing and of course they should be well funded, but it can't fall on them every single time to look out for the community. It's the responsibility of all of us and of this government. Yes of course.
Now at university, I saw some of the challenges faced by Jewish students on campus, and more recently I did speak at the Leeds Leeds Against Antisemitism demonstration, where I heard directly from members of the community about the challenges that they're enduring now, particularly in recent years. But this is a long standing problem. As many members will know now, I will return to the experience of Jewish students later because I think what's happening on our campuses tells us something important about the wider problems we're facing.
But the Jewish community in Britain is facing a profound crisis of safety and security. It is profound. It cannot be said often enough that the first duty of government should always be the safety and security of its citizens. We hear it often enough in the chamber, but it needs to be said again. And that means the responsibility for protecting the Jewish community can't rest with the community itself. It can't. Nor should Jewish organisations be expected to shoulder this burden alone.
CST are amazing and of course they should be well funded, but it can't fall on them every single time to look out for the community. It's the responsibility of all of us and of this government. Yes of course.
09:53
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Just on the Jewish community. Would you agree with me that we had an appalling incident just a few years ago when a reporter of Jewish extraction from Israel was in Northern Ireland in licensed premises, asking punters who, some of whom were not under the excessive influence of alcohol, but coolly and calmly asked him what the problem they had with Jewish people. And one punter live on television said the only problem with Hitler was he didn't kill enough Jews.
And I raised with the prosecution service why that person wasn't subject to prosecution, and I couldn't get a legitimate answer to a comment like that live on television to a Jewish reporter.
And I raised with the prosecution service why that person wasn't subject to prosecution, and I couldn't get a legitimate answer to a comment like that live on television to a Jewish reporter.
09:53
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
My goodness me, I thank him for his intervention. What a disgraceful turn of events that people feel confident enough to say something like that on camera. And especially, you know, if they're not even intoxicated, so they're not inebriated. Not that that would justify any comments of that nature. I think that's sickening. And it does speak to the heart of what we're trying to get to, and that there are a lot of people who, sadly, because of the way the anti-Semitism has been allowed to flourish, now confidently say such things, even on camera.
It's disgraceful. And so we also need, I think, because of the honourable gentleman's comments and otherwise, we also need to think about what it means to belong to a society where you're repeatedly forced to ask whether it's safe to live openly as a Jewish person. The problem is, and the threat is the threat itself, that is the problem and the effect that it's having on Jewish people who have to live in anticipation of it. Now, over the past year, Jewish communities have obviously seen attacks on communal organisations, threats against places of worship and institutions.
As my hon. Friend set out at the beginning alongside appalling levels of anti-Semitic incidents. But the significance of that cannot be simply measured by counting those incidents alone, because it is changing the lives of Jewish people in this country, changing the everyday, ordinary lives of Jewish people in this community, in this country, familiar places and ordinary routines become questions of security. Precautions that might once have seemed extreme, maybe even paranoid, have instead become reasonable considerations that Jewish people have to make as part of their ordinary daily lives.
It's why security outside synagogues, schools and community institutions still remain, sadly, all too essential. It's why Jewish societies at universities don't always publicise where their events are going to take place. And it's why celebrating Jewish life in public can require precautions that few other communities in this country ever have to consider. Of course.
It's disgraceful. And so we also need, I think, because of the honourable gentleman's comments and otherwise, we also need to think about what it means to belong to a society where you're repeatedly forced to ask whether it's safe to live openly as a Jewish person. The problem is, and the threat is the threat itself, that is the problem and the effect that it's having on Jewish people who have to live in anticipation of it. Now, over the past year, Jewish communities have obviously seen attacks on communal organisations, threats against places of worship and institutions.
As my hon. Friend set out at the beginning alongside appalling levels of anti-Semitic incidents. But the significance of that cannot be simply measured by counting those incidents alone, because it is changing the lives of Jewish people in this country, changing the everyday, ordinary lives of Jewish people in this community, in this country, familiar places and ordinary routines become questions of security. Precautions that might once have seemed extreme, maybe even paranoid, have instead become reasonable considerations that Jewish people have to make as part of their ordinary daily lives.
It's why security outside synagogues, schools and community institutions still remain, sadly, all too essential. It's why Jewish societies at universities don't always publicise where their events are going to take place. And it's why celebrating Jewish life in public can require precautions that few other communities in this country ever have to consider. Of course.
09:55
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I think the honourable gentleman for giving way. In my previous intervention, I mentioned a meeting that my hon. Friend the member for Richmond Park and I had at Richmond Synagogue with children and young people and their parents about their experiences in schools, colleges and universities, and to his point about sort of hiding their identity and maybe withdrawing partly from public life. One of the university students who talked about, I'm going to name the university because it's where I went to university, Cambridge University, in some of the colleges, the anti-Semitism was rife and not dealt with.
They hid where the Jewish society would meet. One student said she'd done Hebrew teaching as part of her extracurricular activities. She's keeping that off her CV because she's worried she'll be discriminated against. And folk in that room said to us, we're tired of advocating for ourselves. We need others to advocate for us. So it's incumbent on all of us to come together and say, enough is enough.
They hid where the Jewish society would meet. One student said she'd done Hebrew teaching as part of her extracurricular activities. She's keeping that off her CV because she's worried she'll be discriminated against. And folk in that room said to us, we're tired of advocating for ourselves. We need others to advocate for us. So it's incumbent on all of us to come together and say, enough is enough.
09:56
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you for intervention. I could not agree more, and I'll come on to universities in the final part of my speech, where the experiences of students at the University of Leeds actually reflect what she was saying in her contribution there. Now, security is incredibly important, but our ambition cannot simply be to protect the Jewish people from immediate physical danger. It must also mean being able to live openly and confidently in British society with a sense of belonging while being Jewish.
Now that challenge is made even more serious by the actions of hostile states. I do welcome the action the government has taken on designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, under the newly reformed National Security Act designation, must be backed up by vigilance and effective enforcement, and ministers have acknowledged in previous statements that Jewish people are amongst the most targeted by the Iranian state and the IRGC in particular, alongside dissidents and journalists. So I'd therefore be grateful if the minister could set out what further steps have been taken to ensure that hostile states and their proxies cannot intimidate our target British Jewish communal institutions or other organisations in Britain? Because this isn't just some distant foreign policy concern, as we know, we have to live with it every day.
Iran has demonstrated its willingness to project threats well beyond its own borders. It also views Jewish communities through the prism of the conflict with Israel. That inevitably creates further concerns for Jewish people here in Britain. And I do want to say, just before I come on to my point about universities, we have to confront the antisemitism that presents itself as anti-Zionism. Criticism of the Israeli government is, of course, not inherently antisemitic.
Of course it isn't. But denying Jewish people alone the right to national self-determination or treating British Jews as responsible for the actions of Israel is obviously antisemitic. It is anti-Zionist anti-Semitism, and it needs to be called out. Of course.
Now that challenge is made even more serious by the actions of hostile states. I do welcome the action the government has taken on designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, under the newly reformed National Security Act designation, must be backed up by vigilance and effective enforcement, and ministers have acknowledged in previous statements that Jewish people are amongst the most targeted by the Iranian state and the IRGC in particular, alongside dissidents and journalists. So I'd therefore be grateful if the minister could set out what further steps have been taken to ensure that hostile states and their proxies cannot intimidate our target British Jewish communal institutions or other organisations in Britain? Because this isn't just some distant foreign policy concern, as we know, we have to live with it every day.
Iran has demonstrated its willingness to project threats well beyond its own borders. It also views Jewish communities through the prism of the conflict with Israel. That inevitably creates further concerns for Jewish people here in Britain. And I do want to say, just before I come on to my point about universities, we have to confront the antisemitism that presents itself as anti-Zionism. Criticism of the Israeli government is, of course, not inherently antisemitic.
Of course it isn't. But denying Jewish people alone the right to national self-determination or treating British Jews as responsible for the actions of Israel is obviously antisemitic. It is anti-Zionist anti-Semitism, and it needs to be called out. Of course.
09:58
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I congratulate on what is a wonderful speech, and he will know, because he's from Leeds, that one of the people that spend most of their time propagating that sort of virulent anti-Semitism is the deputy leader of the Green Party in Leeds, who once posted a list of British people, some Jewish saying bought and sold by Israel purely because of their politics disgrace.
09:59
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I couldn't agree more with the honourable gentleman, and that is exactly the sort of behaviour that we have to call out. And it's exactly the sort of behaviour that the Green Party are going to have to confront at some point, if they don't want their party to become infested with the kinds of people that we had to deal with between 2015 and 2020 in the Labour Party. Now, this is important because the threats facing Jewish people do not exist in neat and separate categories.
Online abuse, as we know, is spilling into the real world. Extremist rhetoric can create an atmosphere in which intimidation becomes normalised, and hostile. States, as we know, will seek to exploit those divisions. The government's Protecting What Matters strategy, which was announced way back in March, contains really important commitments on tackling anti-Semitism and extremism much more broadly, and I obviously welcome that direction of travel. We now have a new government, we have new ministers in place, so it's a test of delivery.
So I'd be very grateful if the minister could provide greater clarity on the timetable for implementing the Protecting what matters strategy. There are lots of measures within it and how success is actually going to be measured. Now I just want to return finally to the issue I mentioned at the beginning, and that's antisemitism on university campuses. It's where I first started to become interested in the issue of Israel and Palestine, the Jewish community in this country.
In June, I did secure a debate, of course.
Online abuse, as we know, is spilling into the real world. Extremist rhetoric can create an atmosphere in which intimidation becomes normalised, and hostile. States, as we know, will seek to exploit those divisions. The government's Protecting What Matters strategy, which was announced way back in March, contains really important commitments on tackling anti-Semitism and extremism much more broadly, and I obviously welcome that direction of travel. We now have a new government, we have new ministers in place, so it's a test of delivery.
So I'd be very grateful if the minister could provide greater clarity on the timetable for implementing the Protecting what matters strategy. There are lots of measures within it and how success is actually going to be measured. Now I just want to return finally to the issue I mentioned at the beginning, and that's antisemitism on university campuses. It's where I first started to become interested in the issue of Israel and Palestine, the Jewish community in this country.
In June, I did secure a debate, of course.
10:00
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
University Belfast. I met the the one of the Jewish students at the synagogue some a year and a half ago, she informed me and Queen's University, a. Jewish students are under particular pressure. And when it comes to universities across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there's just nowhere that the enemies of Jewish people are present, and they have had to retreat into a small shell at Queen's University in Belfast, just to get away from the hatred and the bile from those who hate them.
An example of universities and where they're going the wrong way.
An example of universities and where they're going the wrong way.
10:01
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I thank him so much for his intervention and I couldn't agree more. And unfortunately I'm about to share some statistics which underline the problem even further still. So I secured a debate on antisemitism on university campuses in this chamber back in June. And I did share findings from the Union of Jewish Students Time for change report. It really does underline the seriousness of this. 1 in 5 students that's 20% would be reluctant to or would never share a house with a Jewish student, 1 in 5.
1 in 4 students. This is all students did not care very much or at all if Jewish people were forced to hide their identity. The figures shocked me . Then they still shocked me. Now it's sickening what is happening on our campuses, and it's something this is so much more about than just about individual incidents. It tells us something about the environment in which Jewish people are having to live their lives in all spheres, including university campuses.
Jewish identity should not be something that any student has to explain or justify, nor should Jewish students be treated as representatives of the Israeli government simply because they are Jewish. Now, Ujs has put forward practical recommendations in its time for Change report, which I'd urge the government to seriously consider. The recommendations must be implemented, and I'd be very grateful if the Minister could set out how the government might implement those measures, or is working across departments with university, the police, Jewish communal organisations to ensure that there is a genuinely coordinated approach to ensuring that Jewish students are safe on campus? Because whether it's a Jewish student on campus at university, whether it's a family at a synagogue or a Jewish organisation facing threats from abroad, the principle is the same British Jews should not have to organize their lives around anti-Semitism.
The British Jewish community is an integral part of our society and our national story. They belong here. They always have, they always will, and we will always speak up for them. Thank you, Sir Christopher.
1 in 4 students. This is all students did not care very much or at all if Jewish people were forced to hide their identity. The figures shocked me . Then they still shocked me. Now it's sickening what is happening on our campuses, and it's something this is so much more about than just about individual incidents. It tells us something about the environment in which Jewish people are having to live their lives in all spheres, including university campuses.
Jewish identity should not be something that any student has to explain or justify, nor should Jewish students be treated as representatives of the Israeli government simply because they are Jewish. Now, Ujs has put forward practical recommendations in its time for Change report, which I'd urge the government to seriously consider. The recommendations must be implemented, and I'd be very grateful if the Minister could set out how the government might implement those measures, or is working across departments with university, the police, Jewish communal organisations to ensure that there is a genuinely coordinated approach to ensuring that Jewish students are safe on campus? Because whether it's a Jewish student on campus at university, whether it's a family at a synagogue or a Jewish organisation facing threats from abroad, the principle is the same British Jews should not have to organize their lives around anti-Semitism.
The British Jewish community is an integral part of our society and our national story. They belong here. They always have, they always will, and we will always speak up for them. Thank you, Sir Christopher.
10:03
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
It's an honour to serve under your chairmanship. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that our Jewish communities are under threat, threatened with a persistent and toxic hatred that has the worst possible outcome. Innocent people murdered simply because of who they are and the faith they practice. This cannot continue. Everything possible must be done to ensure that our Jewish communities are no longer threatened. Prejudice and hatred must be tackled at the root, and the casual othering of minority groups like the Jewish community must be called out and must be stopped.
Sir Christopher, when institutions fail to act against hatred, prejudice simply becomes policy, and history shows us the dark path that that follows if this is allowed to happen. Two weeks ago, I was honored to join the congregation at Heaton Park Synagogue for a memorial service commemorating the victims of the terror attack that occurred on Yom Kippur last year. It was heartbreaking to hear the stepdaughter of Melvin Kravitz talk about her experiences both of that day and on the days and nights that followed.
She described with such warmth the man that Melvin was and the profound impact he had on her life and that of her mother. She told us how Melvin's murder, how, how. After Melvin's murder, the community stood together and supported her family through their darkest hours. But she also talked about how she became the target for malicious and vile trolls who would send her anti-Semitic abuse about the death of her stepdad. These trolls would claim that Jewish people were to blame for the murder of both Adrian Dalby and her stepfather, Sir Christopher.
This is a vile and disturbing distortion. Its sole purpose is to not only dismiss the horrendous experiences of a grieving daughter, but to also paint the Jewish community as somehow deserving of the fate they receive. And sadly, this sentiment is not uncommon. Latest statistics from the Home Office show that Jewish people have a higher rate of religious hate crimes targeted towards them than any other faith group, both online and in person. British Jews experience a very real threat whilst living their everyday life.
Yeshurun Hebrew congregation sits proudly in my constituency and does so much for the wider community, but I know from speaking to the leaders at the synagogue that despite their best efforts to keep the congregation safe, it is becoming ever more difficult. They told me the lengths they must go to to protect their community, increasing war heights as it was assessed that someone could get over the existing wall in just 10s. Looking at additional CCTV provision to ensure that every single corner is covered and keeping children from playing outside in the car park in case they can't get inside if an attack were to happen.
I was told that people often question whether they should attend their synagogue because of the potential for harm. We have to be clear no one should have to consider these things to protest, to practice their faith. And it should make us angry that this is the case. Things need to change and we need solutions. Conscious action and resolve. The CST must be properly funded. I was lucky enough to visit their headquarters so I could see the vital work that they are doing to keep people safe and secure, and I thank them for everything they do.
We must see an increase in police presence and patrols. Greater Manchester Police do an incredible job in working with our Jewish community, but their resources are becoming ever more stretched. They need more capacity to ensure they can deliver proper neighbourhood policing, and the government must act on its community cohesion strategy without delay. When people feel connected and invested in common values, they are better able to work together to address division and tackle hatred.
Sir Christopher, We cannot rest until our Jewish friends and neighbours no longer need to build high walls. They no longer need to install more and more cameras, and they no longer need to stop their children playing outside. So I urge the minister to do everything in her power to ensure that the Jewish community is safe. But I urge all members here today to not merely rely on the words spoken in this hall, but to turn those words into action, because it is through positive action, through challenging antisemitism wherever it appears and through standing with our Jewish communities when they need support, that we will surely ensure our country is a safe place for Jews.
Sir Christopher, when institutions fail to act against hatred, prejudice simply becomes policy, and history shows us the dark path that that follows if this is allowed to happen. Two weeks ago, I was honored to join the congregation at Heaton Park Synagogue for a memorial service commemorating the victims of the terror attack that occurred on Yom Kippur last year. It was heartbreaking to hear the stepdaughter of Melvin Kravitz talk about her experiences both of that day and on the days and nights that followed.
She described with such warmth the man that Melvin was and the profound impact he had on her life and that of her mother. She told us how Melvin's murder, how, how. After Melvin's murder, the community stood together and supported her family through their darkest hours. But she also talked about how she became the target for malicious and vile trolls who would send her anti-Semitic abuse about the death of her stepdad. These trolls would claim that Jewish people were to blame for the murder of both Adrian Dalby and her stepfather, Sir Christopher.
This is a vile and disturbing distortion. Its sole purpose is to not only dismiss the horrendous experiences of a grieving daughter, but to also paint the Jewish community as somehow deserving of the fate they receive. And sadly, this sentiment is not uncommon. Latest statistics from the Home Office show that Jewish people have a higher rate of religious hate crimes targeted towards them than any other faith group, both online and in person. British Jews experience a very real threat whilst living their everyday life.
Yeshurun Hebrew congregation sits proudly in my constituency and does so much for the wider community, but I know from speaking to the leaders at the synagogue that despite their best efforts to keep the congregation safe, it is becoming ever more difficult. They told me the lengths they must go to to protect their community, increasing war heights as it was assessed that someone could get over the existing wall in just 10s. Looking at additional CCTV provision to ensure that every single corner is covered and keeping children from playing outside in the car park in case they can't get inside if an attack were to happen.
I was told that people often question whether they should attend their synagogue because of the potential for harm. We have to be clear no one should have to consider these things to protest, to practice their faith. And it should make us angry that this is the case. Things need to change and we need solutions. Conscious action and resolve. The CST must be properly funded. I was lucky enough to visit their headquarters so I could see the vital work that they are doing to keep people safe and secure, and I thank them for everything they do.
We must see an increase in police presence and patrols. Greater Manchester Police do an incredible job in working with our Jewish community, but their resources are becoming ever more stretched. They need more capacity to ensure they can deliver proper neighbourhood policing, and the government must act on its community cohesion strategy without delay. When people feel connected and invested in common values, they are better able to work together to address division and tackle hatred.
Sir Christopher, We cannot rest until our Jewish friends and neighbours no longer need to build high walls. They no longer need to install more and more cameras, and they no longer need to stop their children playing outside. So I urge the minister to do everything in her power to ensure that the Jewish community is safe. But I urge all members here today to not merely rely on the words spoken in this hall, but to turn those words into action, because it is through positive action, through challenging antisemitism wherever it appears and through standing with our Jewish communities when they need support, that we will surely ensure our country is a safe place for Jews.
10:07
10:07
10:07
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning. And I thank the honourable member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet for securing a very important debate. The safety of the Jewish community is not a marginal issue. It goes absolutely to the heart of the kind of country that we want to be. British Jews should be able to go to synagogue to send their children to school, to travel, to work and live openly as Jews without fear, intimidation or abuse.
And I want to also pay tribute to the community Security Trust, to the police, to synagogue security volunteers, and to Jewish schools and community organisations. They do vital work, but it should trouble every one of us that such work is so necessary. The scale of the challenge is really clear. CST recorded almost 2000 antisemitic incidents across the UK in the first half of this year, the second highest total ever reported in the first six months of the year.
And this is not a short term spike that is simply past. It is a sustained change in the atmosphere faced by Jewish communities. This is not about asking for special treatment. It's about the very basic right to live without being held collectively responsible for events that happen around the world. No child should ever grow up thinking that security guards outside their school are a fact of life.
Yet for many Jewish children, that is exactly what normality looks like right now. Community Safety Trust as Community Security Trust recorded almost 200 antisemitic incidents affecting schools in the first half of this year, again the highest January to June total that they have recorded. This is about Jewish children not having to pass security guards on their way to school , as if it were normal, about young people never having to choose between their safety and being openly Jewish.
It is about Jewish students not having to change their routes across campus or hide parts of who they are. The government has to continue to support the security of Jewish communal life. But the answer, as other members have alluded, cannot simply be more and higher fences and more guards. We have to deal with the hatred that makes those fences necessary in the first place, and I believe that makes serious work on online radicalisation, on proper enforcement against antisemitism in schools and universities, and also a social cohesion strategy that is prepared to confront hard truths.
And I look forward to hearing the minister's response on those issues. Jewish citizens are asking for what every citizen in the UK should rightly expect. That is the right to live, worship, study and contribute openly and safely. That is really the absolute minimum that a decent society must guarantee for all of us.
And I want to also pay tribute to the community Security Trust, to the police, to synagogue security volunteers, and to Jewish schools and community organisations. They do vital work, but it should trouble every one of us that such work is so necessary. The scale of the challenge is really clear. CST recorded almost 2000 antisemitic incidents across the UK in the first half of this year, the second highest total ever reported in the first six months of the year.
And this is not a short term spike that is simply past. It is a sustained change in the atmosphere faced by Jewish communities. This is not about asking for special treatment. It's about the very basic right to live without being held collectively responsible for events that happen around the world. No child should ever grow up thinking that security guards outside their school are a fact of life.
Yet for many Jewish children, that is exactly what normality looks like right now. Community Safety Trust as Community Security Trust recorded almost 200 antisemitic incidents affecting schools in the first half of this year, again the highest January to June total that they have recorded. This is about Jewish children not having to pass security guards on their way to school , as if it were normal, about young people never having to choose between their safety and being openly Jewish.
It is about Jewish students not having to change their routes across campus or hide parts of who they are. The government has to continue to support the security of Jewish communal life. But the answer, as other members have alluded, cannot simply be more and higher fences and more guards. We have to deal with the hatred that makes those fences necessary in the first place, and I believe that makes serious work on online radicalisation, on proper enforcement against antisemitism in schools and universities, and also a social cohesion strategy that is prepared to confront hard truths.
And I look forward to hearing the minister's response on those issues. Jewish citizens are asking for what every citizen in the UK should rightly expect. That is the right to live, worship, study and contribute openly and safely. That is really the absolute minimum that a decent society must guarantee for all of us.
10:11
10:11
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Mr. chair, I commend the honourable member for bringing forward this very important debate at the outset. I want to make it absolutely clear that I stand with Jewish communities right across the United Kingdom. We cannot speak about the safety of Jewish people in Britain without remembering the appalling events of the 7th of October. The slaughter carried out by Hamas was an act of barbaric terrorism and violent antisemitism. Men, women and children were murdered simply because they were Jewish.
I have previously said that those who value democracy must stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in the face of such terrorism, and I make no apology for repeating that today, but I am increasingly concerned not only by what we have seen, but what by, but by what we have failed to hear. There have been occasions when some in this House, who are vocal on many international issues, have struggled to offer the most basic condemnation of the murder of Jewish people, or of the hatred that motivated it.
And that silence matters. It matters because Jewish people in this country should not have to wonder whether the institutions that are supposed to protect them will stand with them . When anti-Semitism becomes uncomfortable or politically inconvenient. We have seen anti-Semitism manifest itself in our streets, at demonstrations on university campuses and, tragically, in attacks on Jewish people and Jewish institutions. And we've also seen it over the weekend in Northern Ireland, when athletes were prevented from taking part in a triathlon, not because they had committed any offences or being racist or provoked hatred.
No, it was simply because they were from Israel. There are people of all faiths and none who represent Israel in international sport. We have seen the consequences of the normalisation of hatred. Indeed, the very slogan from the river to the sea is used by those in this house, and you just have to look at the meaning of it, the obliteration of the state of Israel and all that live in it.
And we must be absolutely clear, anti-Semitism is not a legitimate political position. It is not acceptable criticism. It is hatred directed at people because they are Jewish and it must be confronted wherever it appears. Mr. chairman, this is fundamentally about equality. There are no second class citizens in the United Kingdom. Every citizen should be able to walk down the street, attend their place of worship, send their children to school and express their faith without fear of intimidation or attack.
It is therefore deeply troubling if Jewish people feel that they have to conceal their identity or alter their behaviour simply to feel safe. If a Jewish person is advised not to walk down a particular street or feels unsafe wearing the openly, we should not simply accept that as unfortunate reality of modern Britain. That is not the standard we should settle for. Generations before us fought and sacrificed so that people in this country could live freely, practice their faith and express their identity without fear.
The Jewish community must be entitled to exactly the same freedoms. Mr. chairman, we must remember that anti-Semitism did not begin with the 7th of October, and it will not disappear simply because the headlines move on. We have a responsibility to learn the lessons of history, and we must ensure that Jewish people in Britain today do not simply remember the promise of never again as something belonging to the past. They must be able to live it.
They must be able to walk our streets freely. They must be able to wear the symbols of their faith openly. They must be able to attend synagogues without fear. They must be able to send their children to school without worrying about whether they will face hatred because they are Jewish. And they must know that when anti-Semitism raises its ugly head, this parliament, this government and the wider British public will stand with them.
Thank. Thank you.
I have previously said that those who value democracy must stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in the face of such terrorism, and I make no apology for repeating that today, but I am increasingly concerned not only by what we have seen, but what by, but by what we have failed to hear. There have been occasions when some in this House, who are vocal on many international issues, have struggled to offer the most basic condemnation of the murder of Jewish people, or of the hatred that motivated it.
And that silence matters. It matters because Jewish people in this country should not have to wonder whether the institutions that are supposed to protect them will stand with them . When anti-Semitism becomes uncomfortable or politically inconvenient. We have seen anti-Semitism manifest itself in our streets, at demonstrations on university campuses and, tragically, in attacks on Jewish people and Jewish institutions. And we've also seen it over the weekend in Northern Ireland, when athletes were prevented from taking part in a triathlon, not because they had committed any offences or being racist or provoked hatred.
No, it was simply because they were from Israel. There are people of all faiths and none who represent Israel in international sport. We have seen the consequences of the normalisation of hatred. Indeed, the very slogan from the river to the sea is used by those in this house, and you just have to look at the meaning of it, the obliteration of the state of Israel and all that live in it.
And we must be absolutely clear, anti-Semitism is not a legitimate political position. It is not acceptable criticism. It is hatred directed at people because they are Jewish and it must be confronted wherever it appears. Mr. chairman, this is fundamentally about equality. There are no second class citizens in the United Kingdom. Every citizen should be able to walk down the street, attend their place of worship, send their children to school and express their faith without fear of intimidation or attack.
It is therefore deeply troubling if Jewish people feel that they have to conceal their identity or alter their behaviour simply to feel safe. If a Jewish person is advised not to walk down a particular street or feels unsafe wearing the openly, we should not simply accept that as unfortunate reality of modern Britain. That is not the standard we should settle for. Generations before us fought and sacrificed so that people in this country could live freely, practice their faith and express their identity without fear.
The Jewish community must be entitled to exactly the same freedoms. Mr. chairman, we must remember that anti-Semitism did not begin with the 7th of October, and it will not disappear simply because the headlines move on. We have a responsibility to learn the lessons of history, and we must ensure that Jewish people in Britain today do not simply remember the promise of never again as something belonging to the past. They must be able to live it.
They must be able to walk our streets freely. They must be able to wear the symbols of their faith openly. They must be able to attend synagogues without fear. They must be able to send their children to school without worrying about whether they will face hatred because they are Jewish. And they must know that when anti-Semitism raises its ugly head, this parliament, this government and the wider British public will stand with them.
Thank. Thank you.
10:15
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Chair. French security. Despite all the conversations I have with Jewish residents and friends about safety and security are heartbreaking. We must reflect on the fact that in this country in 2026, Jewish people are talking to their MPs about emigrating for their own safety, about changing their names to avoid discrimination, and about escorting their children to school because they fear what might happen if they don't. When Jewish people are attacked on our streets and so many people feel unsafe in the place they call home, it is a national emergency and it deserves to be treated as such.
The prejudice they face is old, but one that is never far from the surface. And I know from my time as a whistleblower on antisemitism in the Labour Party to the Ehrc, that when our politics tolerates it, hatred and ignorance can rear their ugly head. And that's why I'm proud that this Labour Party, that this government, under different leadership, has taken important steps, be that the record funding for the safety of the Jewish community, a social cohesion plan, or the banning of groups like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
That is action, not words. But we all know that there is so much more that needs to be done. And when I recently met with leaders of the four synagogues in my constituency of Altrincham and Sale West, they made that very clear to me. And in my meetings with the Jewish Leadership Council, that message is reinforced. This is not just about the immediate safety of Jewish residents, it is also about creating a society, as others have said, in which we do not need security services, guarding synagogues and schools.
And crucial to this is education. Which brings me on to the issue that I would like to press the government on today. And that is antisemitism on campus. As others have referred to the Union of Jewish Students, who I was proud to work with as a student and a student union officer and proud to have hosted in Parliament as a member of Parliament, have reported a 413% increase in antisemitic incidents since October the 7th massacre.
The situation remains completely unacceptable and from being held responsible for the actions of the Israeli government to hearing fellow students defend Hamas, Jewish students are routinely made to feel unwelcome and scared at a time that should be one of the most enjoyable experiences of their lives. I welcome the government's existing work with universities across the country on adopting best practice guidance put forward by the Union of Jewish Students, but we must urgently go further, faster and I would therefore urge the minister to work with colleagues on current regulatory gaps, which mean there is a lack of clarity and accountability on the oversight of students unions.
These are gaps that must be filled to ensure that we don't have a postcode lottery of tolerance of antisemitism on our campuses. And could I also join other colleagues in asking the minister if she is able to set out a clear timeline for the implementation of Protecting What Matters strategy, which was a welcome step forward in tackling extremism at universities, but which must be backed up by results. Similarly, following the McDonald review, we must see a balanced approach between respecting academic freedoms and the ability to protest with the absolute right for Jewish students to feel safe on campus.
That is a balance that has been lost at times in recent years, but that must now be restored when we debate antisemitism and Jewish safety, we are right to point out all that is wrong and the action that is needed to put it right. But I would like to end my remarks by talking briefly about something which should give us all hope, which is the Rabbi and the Imam project in which my constituents, Rabbi Dovid Lewis from Bowden Shul, and Doctor Nasser Kurdi from Altrincham and Hale Muslim Association, go into schools to talk about their faith, promoting a simple message of humanity and understanding.
It is programs like this seeing off intolerance before it is able to take root, which are essential to the safety of all faiths in this country and long term protections around religious freedom and expression. The Rabbi and the Imam project offers a reminder that though anti-Semitism and the violence it fosters remains a national emergency, there are amazing projects and amazing people doing incredible work to tackle it. We must match that spirit and commitment to unity in this place.
If we are to make a country a safer place for Jewish citizens. Thank you.
The prejudice they face is old, but one that is never far from the surface. And I know from my time as a whistleblower on antisemitism in the Labour Party to the Ehrc, that when our politics tolerates it, hatred and ignorance can rear their ugly head. And that's why I'm proud that this Labour Party, that this government, under different leadership, has taken important steps, be that the record funding for the safety of the Jewish community, a social cohesion plan, or the banning of groups like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
That is action, not words. But we all know that there is so much more that needs to be done. And when I recently met with leaders of the four synagogues in my constituency of Altrincham and Sale West, they made that very clear to me. And in my meetings with the Jewish Leadership Council, that message is reinforced. This is not just about the immediate safety of Jewish residents, it is also about creating a society, as others have said, in which we do not need security services, guarding synagogues and schools.
And crucial to this is education. Which brings me on to the issue that I would like to press the government on today. And that is antisemitism on campus. As others have referred to the Union of Jewish Students, who I was proud to work with as a student and a student union officer and proud to have hosted in Parliament as a member of Parliament, have reported a 413% increase in antisemitic incidents since October the 7th massacre.
The situation remains completely unacceptable and from being held responsible for the actions of the Israeli government to hearing fellow students defend Hamas, Jewish students are routinely made to feel unwelcome and scared at a time that should be one of the most enjoyable experiences of their lives. I welcome the government's existing work with universities across the country on adopting best practice guidance put forward by the Union of Jewish Students, but we must urgently go further, faster and I would therefore urge the minister to work with colleagues on current regulatory gaps, which mean there is a lack of clarity and accountability on the oversight of students unions.
These are gaps that must be filled to ensure that we don't have a postcode lottery of tolerance of antisemitism on our campuses. And could I also join other colleagues in asking the minister if she is able to set out a clear timeline for the implementation of Protecting What Matters strategy, which was a welcome step forward in tackling extremism at universities, but which must be backed up by results. Similarly, following the McDonald review, we must see a balanced approach between respecting academic freedoms and the ability to protest with the absolute right for Jewish students to feel safe on campus.
That is a balance that has been lost at times in recent years, but that must now be restored when we debate antisemitism and Jewish safety, we are right to point out all that is wrong and the action that is needed to put it right. But I would like to end my remarks by talking briefly about something which should give us all hope, which is the Rabbi and the Imam project in which my constituents, Rabbi Dovid Lewis from Bowden Shul, and Doctor Nasser Kurdi from Altrincham and Hale Muslim Association, go into schools to talk about their faith, promoting a simple message of humanity and understanding.
It is programs like this seeing off intolerance before it is able to take root, which are essential to the safety of all faiths in this country and long term protections around religious freedom and expression. The Rabbi and the Imam project offers a reminder that though anti-Semitism and the violence it fosters remains a national emergency, there are amazing projects and amazing people doing incredible work to tackle it. We must match that spirit and commitment to unity in this place.
If we are to make a country a safer place for Jewish citizens. Thank you.
10:21
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairship, and I'd like to put on record my thanks to the honourable member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet for securing this really important debate. We have heard such powerful contributions this morning about the scale of the issue that we face, and heard some powerful proposals for how we can challenge this. I represent some of the most diverse communities in the United Kingdom, including historic Jewish communities.
I represent one of the oldest continuously serving synagogues in Europe. Bevis Marks, the Liberal Jewish Synagogue, New London Synagogue in St John's Wood, Saint John's Wood Synagogue as well. All are welcoming diverse Jewish communities into their synagogues every week. We cannot underestimate the scale of the challenge we currently face. Every Jewish Londoner should be able to go to school, attend synagogue, travel to work and take part in public life without fear.
And yet they can't. At the moment, anti-Semitism remains far too common. The Community Security Trust reports that antisemitic incidents remain at very high levels and increase further during the first half of 2026, and we need to be honest with ourselves and how this feels and recognise that this is a level of antisemitism that many of us will not have experienced in our own lifetimes. These are not just statistics, they affect real people, communities, our friends and neighbours and our families.
At a meeting that I held with my local rabbis and chairs of synagogues that I meet with them regularly. Last week, I heard firsthand just how constituents are feeling. Just this weekend, there was an incident within my constituency where there was a profound surveillance of a particular synagogue, and the response times were, in my mind, completely unacceptable. And I'll come on to some of the some of the responses that we need to make to this problem shortly.
In my remarks, I would like to, at this point, put on record my support. And thanks for the words of the honourable member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, and some of the reflections that we have had today about the disgusting conflation of geopolitical events with individuals and communities in this country. It is profoundly antisemitic to do such a thing. And as my honourable friend from Altrincham and Sale West has talked about, we absolutely need to be looking at the causes of this and the education measures that we must put in place.
I'm going to make some progress. I really welcome the government's support for security at Jewish synagogues, Jewish schools, synagogues and community centres, as well as the announcement in July for £250 million into Jewish community safety. But as we've heard so powerfully today, security funding just is not enough. Building higher walls is not the place that any of us want to be in. We absolutely need to take stronger action against hate crime.
We've heard briefly about what is happening in London at weekends, when neighbourhood police are drawn into the centre of London to police demonstrations. We need to be honest about hate crime that takes place on those demonstrations and take the toughest possible action against it. We need stronger action and a greater focus on neighbourhood policing so that every synagogue understands and knows their neighbourhood police officers, and that they have that relationship that can give them the confidence in their local community.
We need stronger action on antisemitism online, and I pay tribute to the work of the Antisemitism Policy Trust on this specific issue, and I believe it needs a greater focus. We need continued Holocaust education and clear leadership in calling out antisemitism wherever it occurs. The safety for Jewish Londoners, the safety for Jewish communities is not just an issue for those Jewish communities. It is an issue for all of us.
When a community feels unsafe because of who they are, all of us are affected. It damages all of our communities. We must stand firm against antisemitism and ensure that every Jewish Londoner can live openly, proudly and safely.
I represent one of the oldest continuously serving synagogues in Europe. Bevis Marks, the Liberal Jewish Synagogue, New London Synagogue in St John's Wood, Saint John's Wood Synagogue as well. All are welcoming diverse Jewish communities into their synagogues every week. We cannot underestimate the scale of the challenge we currently face. Every Jewish Londoner should be able to go to school, attend synagogue, travel to work and take part in public life without fear.
And yet they can't. At the moment, anti-Semitism remains far too common. The Community Security Trust reports that antisemitic incidents remain at very high levels and increase further during the first half of 2026, and we need to be honest with ourselves and how this feels and recognise that this is a level of antisemitism that many of us will not have experienced in our own lifetimes. These are not just statistics, they affect real people, communities, our friends and neighbours and our families.
At a meeting that I held with my local rabbis and chairs of synagogues that I meet with them regularly. Last week, I heard firsthand just how constituents are feeling. Just this weekend, there was an incident within my constituency where there was a profound surveillance of a particular synagogue, and the response times were, in my mind, completely unacceptable. And I'll come on to some of the some of the responses that we need to make to this problem shortly.
In my remarks, I would like to, at this point, put on record my support. And thanks for the words of the honourable member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, and some of the reflections that we have had today about the disgusting conflation of geopolitical events with individuals and communities in this country. It is profoundly antisemitic to do such a thing. And as my honourable friend from Altrincham and Sale West has talked about, we absolutely need to be looking at the causes of this and the education measures that we must put in place.
I'm going to make some progress. I really welcome the government's support for security at Jewish synagogues, Jewish schools, synagogues and community centres, as well as the announcement in July for £250 million into Jewish community safety. But as we've heard so powerfully today, security funding just is not enough. Building higher walls is not the place that any of us want to be in. We absolutely need to take stronger action against hate crime.
We've heard briefly about what is happening in London at weekends, when neighbourhood police are drawn into the centre of London to police demonstrations. We need to be honest about hate crime that takes place on those demonstrations and take the toughest possible action against it. We need stronger action and a greater focus on neighbourhood policing so that every synagogue understands and knows their neighbourhood police officers, and that they have that relationship that can give them the confidence in their local community.
We need stronger action on antisemitism online, and I pay tribute to the work of the Antisemitism Policy Trust on this specific issue, and I believe it needs a greater focus. We need continued Holocaust education and clear leadership in calling out antisemitism wherever it occurs. The safety for Jewish Londoners, the safety for Jewish communities is not just an issue for those Jewish communities. It is an issue for all of us.
When a community feels unsafe because of who they are, all of us are affected. It damages all of our communities. We must stand firm against antisemitism and ensure that every Jewish Londoner can live openly, proudly and safely.
10:26
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you, Sir Christopher. It's a privilege to speak in this debate on Jewish safety and to represent one of Britain's oldest seaside Jewish communities as a member of Parliament for Bournemouth East, Jewish families in Bournemouth have built businesses, strengthened our heritage and contributed to civic life, with a number of Jewish mayors including Louis Barney, Gabriel Jaffe, Michael and Anne Fowler, Pamela Harris, Ben Grover, Barry Goldbart and Lawrence Williams. I was privileged to attend the consecration of the new Synagogue for Bournemouth Hebrew Hebrew congregation in East Cliff in my neighbourhood.
In fact, in the presence of the Chief Rabbi just a few short months ago, and it marked a new chapter in the life of the Jewish community in Bournemouth. The new shul has been refurbished and throughout the building there are colours inspired by Bournemouth's sand cliffs, piers and breakwaters and the light filled main prayer has a series of stained glass images, many of which recreate those from the old Watton Garden Synagogue, which I was also pleased to go to many times and to attend the farewell concert for not just showing that where you have a new start, you also say farewell.
My Jewish constituents deserve what every citizen deserves. They want to feel safe. The statistics tell part of that story. Dorset Police tell me that they recorded 26 antisemitic crimes across BCP in the year to May of this year, and every one of those crimes matter. Statistics alone cannot explain what it feels like when fear enters everyday life. For that, we must listen to the people in Bournemouth, and so I encourage my constituents to be in touch
In fact, in the presence of the Chief Rabbi just a few short months ago, and it marked a new chapter in the life of the Jewish community in Bournemouth. The new shul has been refurbished and throughout the building there are colours inspired by Bournemouth's sand cliffs, piers and breakwaters and the light filled main prayer has a series of stained glass images, many of which recreate those from the old Watton Garden Synagogue, which I was also pleased to go to many times and to attend the farewell concert for not just showing that where you have a new start, you also say farewell.
My Jewish constituents deserve what every citizen deserves. They want to feel safe. The statistics tell part of that story. Dorset Police tell me that they recorded 26 antisemitic crimes across BCP in the year to May of this year, and every one of those crimes matter. Statistics alone cannot explain what it feels like when fear enters everyday life. For that, we must listen to the people in Bournemouth, and so I encourage my constituents to be in touch
10:27
10:27
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
be in touch ahead of this debate, and told me that she has removed the Star of David necklace that she wore throughout her life because she no longer feels comfortable openly displaying her Jewish identity. Stefan, from East Cliff and Springbourne, wrote, we are alone, we are at the age of 73. He has never experienced such open antisemitism, and he speaks now of conversations taking place around dinner tables that many had hoped belong only to history. David, a retired rabbi, said that British Jews regard themselves as British citizens first and foremost and spoke of generations of Jewish people serving our country in our armed forces of prayers being said each week in synagogues for the royal family and the government, and of public duty throughout our town.
I know some Jewish patients in my constituency who are reluctant to identify their faith when admitted to hospital because they fear how they may be treated. And so I want them to know that following Lord Mann's review, the government is requiring anti-racism training aimed at tackling anti-Semitism and other racism in the NHS. Another constituent, who is not Jewish himself, wrote to me about friends who feel unsafe and threatened showing solidarity with them. Josephine, who is happily lived in Bournemouth for more than two decades, told me that she never expected to face continual hostility and intimidation.
She and her husband recently celebrated their 65th wedding anniversary at the synagogue, but they felt compelled to employ security guards for the event. Adele, who is 82, spoke movingly of her grandparents, who found safety, democracy and peace of mind in our country. And she tells me all we ask is to live here in peace and free from fear. And Derek describes the reality that many Jewish people now live with, particularly following the atrocities of 7th October and the war that followed, which has left many Jewish people spending their time, in his words, watching our backs.
Relying on police protection and the Community Security Trust to guard places of worship and community events. And several members of the community have been in touch to talk about a particular incident in Bournemouth Square last year, alongside Jewish residents and Christian supporters, a small protest.
I know some Jewish patients in my constituency who are reluctant to identify their faith when admitted to hospital because they fear how they may be treated. And so I want them to know that following Lord Mann's review, the government is requiring anti-racism training aimed at tackling anti-Semitism and other racism in the NHS. Another constituent, who is not Jewish himself, wrote to me about friends who feel unsafe and threatened showing solidarity with them. Josephine, who is happily lived in Bournemouth for more than two decades, told me that she never expected to face continual hostility and intimidation.
She and her husband recently celebrated their 65th wedding anniversary at the synagogue, but they felt compelled to employ security guards for the event. Adele, who is 82, spoke movingly of her grandparents, who found safety, democracy and peace of mind in our country. And she tells me all we ask is to live here in peace and free from fear. And Derek describes the reality that many Jewish people now live with, particularly following the atrocities of 7th October and the war that followed, which has left many Jewish people spending their time, in his words, watching our backs.
Relying on police protection and the Community Security Trust to guard places of worship and community events. And several members of the community have been in touch to talk about a particular incident in Bournemouth Square last year, alongside Jewish residents and Christian supporters, a small protest.
10:29
10:30
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you, chair, and I want to say that it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I thank the honourable member for this important debate. It's been a very powerful morning here in this chamber, both on the challenges but also the stories of hope in relation to this difficult issue. And I want to just start by expressing my solidarity with Jewish communities across the country and with everyone who is experiencing anti-Semitic abuse, intimidation or violence.
10:30
10:30
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, Sir Christopher. I was under the impression that there was no time limit. I was not warned in advance of the need to reduce the length of my speech. I have deliberately solicited the views of my constituents, who I want to put on the official parliamentary record about an issue which affects them very deeply, which is their feeling of insecurity and discontent in our country because of anti-Semitism. I am concerned that they have been unrepresented on the parliamentary record, because you, as chair, have artificially circumscribed the time limit, and I ask that I be given the chance to speak fully and represent my constituents views in their entirety.
10:31
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Well, I didn't impose a time limit, but there's always half an hour at the end for wind ups, and you be a member of this House now for over over two years. You must realise that in an hour and a half debate, there's an hour for the speeches and half an hour for for the wind ups. Well, you're shaking your head and I'm sorry you haven't. You haven't been able to haven't been able to learn on the job.
But I'm not going to accept criticism for calling the front benches at half past to enable them all to be able to participate in this debate and hopefully give a chance for the person who initiated this debate to have a few words at the end. And the I'm almost lost for words, because we got to half past and the honourable gentleman should have realised that that was the end of the time for backbenchers, and that's when the frontbench starts speaking.
But anyway, perhaps. No, I'm not going to accept a further point of order. Perhaps the honourable gentleman will learn from the what has happened this morning. Zoe Franklin.
But I'm not going to accept criticism for calling the front benches at half past to enable them all to be able to participate in this debate and hopefully give a chance for the person who initiated this debate to have a few words at the end. And the I'm almost lost for words, because we got to half past and the honourable gentleman should have realised that that was the end of the time for backbenchers, and that's when the frontbench starts speaking.
But anyway, perhaps. No, I'm not going to accept a further point of order. Perhaps the honourable gentleman will learn from the what has happened this morning. Zoe Franklin.
10:32
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
The latest Home Office figures show there have. There were 106 religious hate crimes targeting Jewish people per ten 000 of the Jewish population, by far the highest rate. Sadly for any religious group. And behind these shocking figures are people who are changing the way they live, as we have heard this morning. The debate because they are frightened, frightened of being attacked, abused or or intimidated simply for practising their faith. And I see that in my own constituency of Guildford, which has a relatively small but growing Jewish community of around 450 residents, which rises to 600 during the university term time.
Members of the community have told me clearly that since the horrific attacks of 7th October, the tone has noticeably shifted in the community. Our local rabbi has received death threats and has even been physically assaulted in public. Jewish residents have faced verbal abuse. A swastika has been drawn at a local golf course. A single Jewish mother had a rotten chicken thrown through her open window while she was with her five year old child, and those are not isolated incidents.
What has stayed with me the most, though, is hearing that some local Jewish families have moved their mazowsza from the outside of their front door to the inside, because they are frightened of being identified as Jewish. This is an extraordinary thing to feel you must do in Britain in 2026 in order to keep your family safe. And it's why I believe our response must be much more about more than simply reacting when another terrible things happen.
We need to step up as community leaders and as Parliament. We need to ensure that Jewish communities are protected now. But we also need to tackle the hatred that makes the protection necessary in the first place. And I really welcome the government's additional 25 million for security following the attacks in Golders Green, bringing the total available to 58 million. I've seen how much this investment matters to the Guildford Synagogue. It has had to spend thousands of pounds upgrading security, and our rabbi has had to spend money improving his own personal security.
I refuse to accept that. That is simply the way it. Anxiety is turning that violence and intimidation is now being normalised. So I would ask the minister if she can explain what long term certainty government will provide for the Community Security Trust and for the security funding relied upon by synagogues, Jewish schools and community organisations, because protecting buildings is necessary. But it is not enough. We also have to ensure that our police and prosecutors can identify anti-Semitism and act when the law is broken.
And I want to be really clear for a moment on protests. The right to peaceful protest is fundamental in a liberal democracy, but there is no right to intimidate Jewish people. There is no right to glorify terrorism, and there is no right to use protests as a cover for anti-Semitic hatred or incitement of violence. And it should not be a difficult distinction for us to make as a society. We, as Liberal Democrats, have called for mandatory anti-Semitism training for police officers and policing demonstrations as part of a statutory code for the policing of protests that would also include stronger protections around places of worship and place responsibilities on protest organisers to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment and intimidation.
I really do think those are practical steps the government should take seriously. So will the minister look at introducing consistent anti-Semitism, training for officers, policing protests around the country, and will the government also look again at how we protect synagogues and other places of worship from intimidating protests immediately outside them? And the same applies when cases reach the justice system. I could go on, and I know that colleagues across this chamber have raised a number of issues in relation to this.
The one of the things I also want to note is the gap between the official statistics and what Jewish residents are saying that they experience. I hear it in my own constituency of Guildford, and I am sure colleagues hear the same. Many incidents are never reported to the police. Others happen in schools, universities or workplaces and are dealt with internally, which means they simply disappear from the national picture. So if we don't understand the scale of anti-Semitism, we cannot properly response respond to it.
And we've talked this morning as well about education and how education of people to understand what is acceptable, what is not acceptable in our language is crucial. But also we've heard from colleagues about the Sir David Sir David Bell's review into anti-Semitism schools. And I've sadly heard too many stories within my own constituency and neighbouring ones, where children and young people are facing antisemitism within their education and setting. And I'm grateful that Sir David Bell's review is coming.
And I want to ask the minister if she will commit to responding quickly to that review and its recommendations when it comes out. I want to sort of end by just saying I want to share something positive, as many colleagues have also done at the end of their speeches. And I want to share about the genuinely positive work happening in Guildford. I'm grateful that Surrey Police have developed a strong liaison relationship with our Jewish community, our councils, Guildford and Waverley.
Surrey Police, Jewish residents and local faith leaders have worked together on a hate crime pledge. We have growing relationships between the Jewish community, the reformed Jewish community in Weybridge and Woking mosque and those relationships are absolutely crucial. They show that even at times of terrible conflict and division, internationally, Jewish and Muslim communities here can continue to talk to one another, support one another and refuse to allow events overseas to divide neighbours at home. And I was proud myself to to stand with local faith leaders and civic leaders with the Guildford Declaration of Freedom of Religion belief, this is work that is absolutely crucial and it takes me to the point of interfaith initiatives.
Sadly, interfaith funding has largely disappeared, and I want to ask the government to look at reinstating that absolutely crucial grassroots interfaith funding, because it is so core to actually enabling positive cross faith work. But ultimately, I don't want the measure of success. When we talk about actually how the Jewish community is being protected, about to be about how many security guards we have funded, or how many hate crimes have been recorded. I want Jewish families to feel comfortable putting the mezuzah back outside their front door.
I want Jewish children to be able to talk about their faith openly, without worrying about how other pupils will react. And I want, in my own community of Guildford, that it is possible to light the menorah on the high Street without armed police there to make it possible, and that requires proper security funding now. It requires better policing, better education, stronger enforcement online and investment in relationships to prevent hatred growing in the first place. anti-Semitism. To be clear, and I think everyone in this room agrees on this.
It has no place in our society. We should not accept Jewish people having to change how visibly Jewish they are in order to feel safe. And I hope that the minister will use this opportunity to set out more on the practical steps. The government will help to ensure that that is the reality.
Members of the community have told me clearly that since the horrific attacks of 7th October, the tone has noticeably shifted in the community. Our local rabbi has received death threats and has even been physically assaulted in public. Jewish residents have faced verbal abuse. A swastika has been drawn at a local golf course. A single Jewish mother had a rotten chicken thrown through her open window while she was with her five year old child, and those are not isolated incidents.
What has stayed with me the most, though, is hearing that some local Jewish families have moved their mazowsza from the outside of their front door to the inside, because they are frightened of being identified as Jewish. This is an extraordinary thing to feel you must do in Britain in 2026 in order to keep your family safe. And it's why I believe our response must be much more about more than simply reacting when another terrible things happen.
We need to step up as community leaders and as Parliament. We need to ensure that Jewish communities are protected now. But we also need to tackle the hatred that makes the protection necessary in the first place. And I really welcome the government's additional 25 million for security following the attacks in Golders Green, bringing the total available to 58 million. I've seen how much this investment matters to the Guildford Synagogue. It has had to spend thousands of pounds upgrading security, and our rabbi has had to spend money improving his own personal security.
I refuse to accept that. That is simply the way it. Anxiety is turning that violence and intimidation is now being normalised. So I would ask the minister if she can explain what long term certainty government will provide for the Community Security Trust and for the security funding relied upon by synagogues, Jewish schools and community organisations, because protecting buildings is necessary. But it is not enough. We also have to ensure that our police and prosecutors can identify anti-Semitism and act when the law is broken.
And I want to be really clear for a moment on protests. The right to peaceful protest is fundamental in a liberal democracy, but there is no right to intimidate Jewish people. There is no right to glorify terrorism, and there is no right to use protests as a cover for anti-Semitic hatred or incitement of violence. And it should not be a difficult distinction for us to make as a society. We, as Liberal Democrats, have called for mandatory anti-Semitism training for police officers and policing demonstrations as part of a statutory code for the policing of protests that would also include stronger protections around places of worship and place responsibilities on protest organisers to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment and intimidation.
I really do think those are practical steps the government should take seriously. So will the minister look at introducing consistent anti-Semitism, training for officers, policing protests around the country, and will the government also look again at how we protect synagogues and other places of worship from intimidating protests immediately outside them? And the same applies when cases reach the justice system. I could go on, and I know that colleagues across this chamber have raised a number of issues in relation to this.
The one of the things I also want to note is the gap between the official statistics and what Jewish residents are saying that they experience. I hear it in my own constituency of Guildford, and I am sure colleagues hear the same. Many incidents are never reported to the police. Others happen in schools, universities or workplaces and are dealt with internally, which means they simply disappear from the national picture. So if we don't understand the scale of anti-Semitism, we cannot properly response respond to it.
And we've talked this morning as well about education and how education of people to understand what is acceptable, what is not acceptable in our language is crucial. But also we've heard from colleagues about the Sir David Sir David Bell's review into anti-Semitism schools. And I've sadly heard too many stories within my own constituency and neighbouring ones, where children and young people are facing antisemitism within their education and setting. And I'm grateful that Sir David Bell's review is coming.
And I want to ask the minister if she will commit to responding quickly to that review and its recommendations when it comes out. I want to sort of end by just saying I want to share something positive, as many colleagues have also done at the end of their speeches. And I want to share about the genuinely positive work happening in Guildford. I'm grateful that Surrey Police have developed a strong liaison relationship with our Jewish community, our councils, Guildford and Waverley.
Surrey Police, Jewish residents and local faith leaders have worked together on a hate crime pledge. We have growing relationships between the Jewish community, the reformed Jewish community in Weybridge and Woking mosque and those relationships are absolutely crucial. They show that even at times of terrible conflict and division, internationally, Jewish and Muslim communities here can continue to talk to one another, support one another and refuse to allow events overseas to divide neighbours at home. And I was proud myself to to stand with local faith leaders and civic leaders with the Guildford Declaration of Freedom of Religion belief, this is work that is absolutely crucial and it takes me to the point of interfaith initiatives.
Sadly, interfaith funding has largely disappeared, and I want to ask the government to look at reinstating that absolutely crucial grassroots interfaith funding, because it is so core to actually enabling positive cross faith work. But ultimately, I don't want the measure of success. When we talk about actually how the Jewish community is being protected, about to be about how many security guards we have funded, or how many hate crimes have been recorded. I want Jewish families to feel comfortable putting the mezuzah back outside their front door.
I want Jewish children to be able to talk about their faith openly, without worrying about how other pupils will react. And I want, in my own community of Guildford, that it is possible to light the menorah on the high Street without armed police there to make it possible, and that requires proper security funding now. It requires better policing, better education, stronger enforcement online and investment in relationships to prevent hatred growing in the first place. anti-Semitism. To be clear, and I think everyone in this room agrees on this.
It has no place in our society. We should not accept Jewish people having to change how visibly Jewish they are in order to feel safe. And I hope that the minister will use this opportunity to set out more on the practical steps. The government will help to ensure that that is the reality.
10:39
10:39
10:39
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Sir Christopher, I thank the honourable member for Hornsey and Furn Barnet for bringing this debate on an issue important to so many of her constituents, despite having only been in this role for a couple of years, I've too often stood opposite ministers to condemn violence and on solemn occasions, mourn the loss of life of those in the Jewish community people targeted for no reason other than being Jewish.
Once these tragedies happen, we seem to find ourselves in the same post tragedy discourse , public figures stating that antisemitism has no place in our society, rightly acknowledging that it is an evil that must be vanquished. Yet how hollow must those words ring when British Jews. Nor that another incident could merely be round the corner when the Golders Green attack occurred. My right hon. Friend the leader of the opposition, was right to state clearly that this is a national emergency.
As with any emergency, there is no single solution. It requires multiple measures. But underpinning the must be a willingness to tackle the underlying ideologies that allow this hatred to fester. Today, the facts are stark. Having visited the Community Safety Trust headquarters, I join members in recognising their incredible professionalism. The CST data released in August showed that between January and June, antisemitic incidents numbered the second highest total ever reported to the trust in the first six months of any year.
That is a disgrace. Prior to October 23rd, the organisation had only ever recorded monthly incidents totalling exceeding 200 on five occasions in the first half of 2026, CST logged more than 200 incidents of anti-Jewish hate in every single month and more than 300 from March to June. These incidents ranged from threats to life, assaults and arson, to damage and desecration of Jewish property and abusive behaviour. But there's another statistic that should stop every member of this house in their tracks the latest Home Office the latest Home Office figures show that in England and Wales there was a 106 police recorded religious hate crimes targeting Jewish people for every 10,000 Jewish people across the population as a whole, the equivalent rate was 1.7 .
Recorded religious hate crimes per ten 000. People put those figures alongside one another, and the disparity is extraordinary and horrifying. On that population adjusted measure, the rate of recorded religious hate crime targeting Jewish people was more than 60 times the overall population rate. Let me repeat that more than 60 times the rate. Religious hate crime is concentrated against Britain's Jewish community, and on a extraordinary and horrifying scale in modern Britain that should shock every one of us.
There is a stinging indictment of where we are and why this debate is so necessary. It also illustrates why the government were right in the summer to allocate further police resources to tackle this issue. Ultimately, across matters of enforcement, we need to increase police presence, have urgent prosecutions, put a moratorium on hate marches, implement maximum sentencing and deterrence, conduct a comprehensive audit of counter-terrorism cases involving antisemitic motivation, and deport foreigners who express antisemitic views, supporting violence or terrorism, and better use existing powers to ensure that hatred cannot be targeted at Jewish communities.
But the question I have is this is enforcement enough? When ideas that fester continue to be popular, so many of us across this House were fortunate enough to go to university. Yet, as has been said, polling conducted for the Union of Jewish Students earlier this year paints a horrendous picture. How can someone feel safe when a fifth of the university campus would not share a house with them? 1 in 4 have seen behaviour targeting Jewish students.
Can the minister confirm when the government will publish the Bell review into anti-Semitism in schools, and if the government will accept its recommendations in full? There is nothing intellectual about prejudice. There is nothing progressive about excluding Jews , and there is nothing enlightened about recycling vile conspiracy theories that are centuries old. The same polling found that 16% thought it was not antisemitic to claim that Jews control the media or government. We need to tackle the ideologies creating this mindset, because antisemitism does not begin with an attack on a synagogue.
It begins with ideas. It begins with conspiracy theories. It begins when Jews are treated as a sinister collective , and ancient prejudices are allowed to spread under new guises. The need to tackle this across communities is unfortunately clear. Polling conducted by Policy Exchange this year found that more more than 2 in 5 British Muslims believe that Jews had too much power over the media, weapons manufacturing and the banking system. We should be capable of saying two things at once.
The overwhelming majority of British Muslims are not responsible for antisemitism and should never be treated as though they are. But when antisemitism, antisemitic attitudes exist within any communities, we do that. Community and British Jews no favours by being frightened to confront them. I will.
Once these tragedies happen, we seem to find ourselves in the same post tragedy discourse , public figures stating that antisemitism has no place in our society, rightly acknowledging that it is an evil that must be vanquished. Yet how hollow must those words ring when British Jews. Nor that another incident could merely be round the corner when the Golders Green attack occurred. My right hon. Friend the leader of the opposition, was right to state clearly that this is a national emergency.
As with any emergency, there is no single solution. It requires multiple measures. But underpinning the must be a willingness to tackle the underlying ideologies that allow this hatred to fester. Today, the facts are stark. Having visited the Community Safety Trust headquarters, I join members in recognising their incredible professionalism. The CST data released in August showed that between January and June, antisemitic incidents numbered the second highest total ever reported to the trust in the first six months of any year.
That is a disgrace. Prior to October 23rd, the organisation had only ever recorded monthly incidents totalling exceeding 200 on five occasions in the first half of 2026, CST logged more than 200 incidents of anti-Jewish hate in every single month and more than 300 from March to June. These incidents ranged from threats to life, assaults and arson, to damage and desecration of Jewish property and abusive behaviour. But there's another statistic that should stop every member of this house in their tracks the latest Home Office the latest Home Office figures show that in England and Wales there was a 106 police recorded religious hate crimes targeting Jewish people for every 10,000 Jewish people across the population as a whole, the equivalent rate was 1.7 .
Recorded religious hate crimes per ten 000. People put those figures alongside one another, and the disparity is extraordinary and horrifying. On that population adjusted measure, the rate of recorded religious hate crime targeting Jewish people was more than 60 times the overall population rate. Let me repeat that more than 60 times the rate. Religious hate crime is concentrated against Britain's Jewish community, and on a extraordinary and horrifying scale in modern Britain that should shock every one of us.
There is a stinging indictment of where we are and why this debate is so necessary. It also illustrates why the government were right in the summer to allocate further police resources to tackle this issue. Ultimately, across matters of enforcement, we need to increase police presence, have urgent prosecutions, put a moratorium on hate marches, implement maximum sentencing and deterrence, conduct a comprehensive audit of counter-terrorism cases involving antisemitic motivation, and deport foreigners who express antisemitic views, supporting violence or terrorism, and better use existing powers to ensure that hatred cannot be targeted at Jewish communities.
But the question I have is this is enforcement enough? When ideas that fester continue to be popular, so many of us across this House were fortunate enough to go to university. Yet, as has been said, polling conducted for the Union of Jewish Students earlier this year paints a horrendous picture. How can someone feel safe when a fifth of the university campus would not share a house with them? 1 in 4 have seen behaviour targeting Jewish students.
Can the minister confirm when the government will publish the Bell review into anti-Semitism in schools, and if the government will accept its recommendations in full? There is nothing intellectual about prejudice. There is nothing progressive about excluding Jews , and there is nothing enlightened about recycling vile conspiracy theories that are centuries old. The same polling found that 16% thought it was not antisemitic to claim that Jews control the media or government. We need to tackle the ideologies creating this mindset, because antisemitism does not begin with an attack on a synagogue.
It begins with ideas. It begins with conspiracy theories. It begins when Jews are treated as a sinister collective , and ancient prejudices are allowed to spread under new guises. The need to tackle this across communities is unfortunately clear. Polling conducted by Policy Exchange this year found that more more than 2 in 5 British Muslims believe that Jews had too much power over the media, weapons manufacturing and the banking system. We should be capable of saying two things at once.
The overwhelming majority of British Muslims are not responsible for antisemitism and should never be treated as though they are. But when antisemitism, antisemitic attitudes exist within any communities, we do that. Community and British Jews no favours by being frightened to confront them. I will.
10:45
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Remember at a recent event hosted by my wonderful local progressive synagogue, lots of issues were raised with me and this is a synagogue. It is not a representative of the Israeli government. We cannot have anyone conflating Jewish faith with that. This is a synagogue that prays for Palestinians every week. But in that place in my progressive city of Brighton and Hove, that was still security and safety were still the absolute backdrop to everything they raised.
They had real fear. And would the honourable member agree that it's so important for us to be building solidarity and cohesion in communities, and making sure we don't drive further wedges between people with tackling this issue?
They had real fear. And would the honourable member agree that it's so important for us to be building solidarity and cohesion in communities, and making sure we don't drive further wedges between people with tackling this issue?
10:46
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I would agree that opening doors is part of the solution, but I would also agree that we've got to tackle anti-Semitism wherever it might be in its most prominent. The same applies to anti-Semitism on the far right. Hatred does not become acceptable because of the politics of the person expressing it. These views go to the heart of the problem. It's not enough merely to have resources to protect the Jewish community. We must combat the intellectual idiocy that appalls and spreads anti-Semitic views.
The test of a liberal democracy is not whether the majority feels safe, it's whether minorities can live openly as themselves without fear. I've taken a sombre turn because it's impossible to look at the current situation with rose tinted glasses. However, for the vast majority of people, anti-Semitic hatred remains abhorrent. The university polling showed that many recognise this hatred when they see it, with 82% deeming calls to globalize the intifada to be anti-Semitic.
That majority matters, but a tolerant majority cannot afford to become a silent majority. So my request to the government today is twofold. First, use the powers of the state unapologetically to protect Jewish people. Secondly, go further upstream, work with the Jewish community, listen to Jewish students, challenge institutions that allow antisemitism to flourish, confront extremist ideology regardless of where it originates and when making decisions in response to events in the Middle East.
Remember that British Jews must never be treated as proxies for the actions of an Israeli government. Whatever our political disagreements, that principle should be utterly uncontroversial. I know members across the House want to see the Jewish community safe, but wanting is no longer enough. When the population adjusted rate of recorded hate crime targeting Jews stands at more than 60 times the overall population rate. When Jewish students are questioning whether they belong on their own campuses, and when Jewish families require security simply to practice their faith, we have to recognise the scale of the emergency before us.
That is not simply a problem for the British Jewish community. It's a test for Britain. It's a test for this government, this House and our country, and one we cannot afford to fail.
The test of a liberal democracy is not whether the majority feels safe, it's whether minorities can live openly as themselves without fear. I've taken a sombre turn because it's impossible to look at the current situation with rose tinted glasses. However, for the vast majority of people, anti-Semitic hatred remains abhorrent. The university polling showed that many recognise this hatred when they see it, with 82% deeming calls to globalize the intifada to be anti-Semitic.
That majority matters, but a tolerant majority cannot afford to become a silent majority. So my request to the government today is twofold. First, use the powers of the state unapologetically to protect Jewish people. Secondly, go further upstream, work with the Jewish community, listen to Jewish students, challenge institutions that allow antisemitism to flourish, confront extremist ideology regardless of where it originates and when making decisions in response to events in the Middle East.
Remember that British Jews must never be treated as proxies for the actions of an Israeli government. Whatever our political disagreements, that principle should be utterly uncontroversial. I know members across the House want to see the Jewish community safe, but wanting is no longer enough. When the population adjusted rate of recorded hate crime targeting Jews stands at more than 60 times the overall population rate. When Jewish students are questioning whether they belong on their own campuses, and when Jewish families require security simply to practice their faith, we have to recognise the scale of the emergency before us.
That is not simply a problem for the British Jewish community. It's a test for Britain. It's a test for this government, this House and our country, and one we cannot afford to fail.
10:48
10:48
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Thank you, Sir Christopher, and it is a pleasure to end this debate, which I think has been very useful and very moving. And I want to congratulate my friend, the honourable member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet, for initiating the debate. Two reflections before before I respond to the questions and the debate itself. One is, I think, just to reiterate the commitment from this government that we recognise we are on a journey to tackle anti-Semitism.
And although I appreciate a lot of members welcoming the funding that we have put in place and the changes that we are making, these, this will not be the end of the journey. We are on this journey to tackle anti-Semitism. We will do whatever is necessary to do that. So we have taken measures that that many members have talked about today, but that will not be the sum of everything that we intend to do, and we do not certainly intend to shy away from the huge challenge that we know we all face.
The second reflection, just listening to the leaders, the MPs in this place who made such powerful speeches, is to say, we are all, as members of Parliament, leaders of this country, and we should all be making sure we are well educated and trained and equipped to answer the call to tackle anti-Semitism. Whether that is going on, the training days that the Antisemitism Policy Trust provide for members of Parliament, whether it is reading, talking, listening to our Jewish friends in our communities, we.
It is incumbent on every single one of us to play a role in this debate and to be the leaders that people elect us to be. I was very struck by the member from Stoke on Trent who talked about how people are retreating from the public space because of their fear, and I will give way at that point.
And although I appreciate a lot of members welcoming the funding that we have put in place and the changes that we are making, these, this will not be the end of the journey. We are on this journey to tackle anti-Semitism. We will do whatever is necessary to do that. So we have taken measures that that many members have talked about today, but that will not be the sum of everything that we intend to do, and we do not certainly intend to shy away from the huge challenge that we know we all face.
The second reflection, just listening to the leaders, the MPs in this place who made such powerful speeches, is to say, we are all, as members of Parliament, leaders of this country, and we should all be making sure we are well educated and trained and equipped to answer the call to tackle anti-Semitism. Whether that is going on, the training days that the Antisemitism Policy Trust provide for members of Parliament, whether it is reading, talking, listening to our Jewish friends in our communities, we.
It is incumbent on every single one of us to play a role in this debate and to be the leaders that people elect us to be. I was very struck by the member from Stoke on Trent who talked about how people are retreating from the public space because of their fear, and I will give way at that point.
10:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank I thank the Minister very much for giving way. As we've heard today, we are facing perhaps the worst anti-Semitism crisis, certainly of my lifetime on the streets, in people's daily lives and online. I'm Jewish, and as I go to synagogue at the end of this week to celebrate Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, I will walk by security guards. Now that is should never have to happen. But that is utterly normal for the Jewish community.
And we have seen a normalisation of hostility that has left many of my constituents in Hendon wondering about their future in this country. Does she agree with me that exactly as the member for Stoke on Trent Central so clearly said, it's not just a matter of building higher walls, but we must be able to build a situation where Jewish people can live proud and proud and open Jewish lives free from fear. And does she also agree that this is an all of society problem that requires an all of society response?
And we have seen a normalisation of hostility that has left many of my constituents in Hendon wondering about their future in this country. Does she agree with me that exactly as the member for Stoke on Trent Central so clearly said, it's not just a matter of building higher walls, but we must be able to build a situation where Jewish people can live proud and proud and open Jewish lives free from fear. And does she also agree that this is an all of society problem that requires an all of society response?
10:52
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Can I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention? I completely agree that the solution is not just to build higher walls, of course, and if our Jewish friends and colleagues are retreating from the public space for fear of their own safety, we have to loudly make sure that public space is full enough with the call against anti-Semitism, so that we can rebuild a society where people feel comfortable speaking openly about their religions, speaking openly about their faith, being proud of being Jews in Britain and being able to exercise their religious rights freely just to respond to some of the points that were made and.
Respond to them as fully as I can. Many members talked about the Protecting what Matters commitments and were keen to see the work expand and be done as quickly as possible. There is a whole cohort of work under that banner which is being done as we speak. So the disruptions team, which horizon scans for extremist influence and events is being expanded with additional resources. There are increasing efforts to stop hate preachers and extremists from entering the UK as part of an expanding, expanded global visa taskforce, which is important.
There is work going on to make sure we are reporting back to Parliament on the work that is happening. An annual State of Extremism report is being developed, and the first iteration of that will be published this year, embedding the 2024 definition of extremism and engagement principles across government. So that means clearer guidance, improved training and updating and embedding the 2024 engagement principles to help public bodies to not confer legitimacy funding, crucially, or influence on extremist groups.
So there is a whole body of work being undertaken, and the annual State of Extremism report will be published in 2024. Several members talked about universities incredibly important , and the very powerful report that members referred to, which I have also read, and absolutely shocking statistics that members have, that members have quoted. I was very privileged to be at a round table with members of various universities. The office for students, Lord Mann, several representatives from the Jewish community talking about anti-Semitism in our universities.
And I know that there is a big programme of work underway to look at training to make sure there is funding to support new guidance from the office for students to invest in the Jewish University Chaplaincy services, and to make sure we are working across different departments, which was also mentioned to tackle this issue. From a policing point of view, my engagement on this issue is largely around some of the smaller, unplanned protests that happen in Jewish spaces and and just being clear and trying to work with local police in those situations as to who is responsible and how how are those issues going to be tackled? Yes.
Respond to them as fully as I can. Many members talked about the Protecting what Matters commitments and were keen to see the work expand and be done as quickly as possible. There is a whole cohort of work under that banner which is being done as we speak. So the disruptions team, which horizon scans for extremist influence and events is being expanded with additional resources. There are increasing efforts to stop hate preachers and extremists from entering the UK as part of an expanding, expanded global visa taskforce, which is important.
There is work going on to make sure we are reporting back to Parliament on the work that is happening. An annual State of Extremism report is being developed, and the first iteration of that will be published this year, embedding the 2024 definition of extremism and engagement principles across government. So that means clearer guidance, improved training and updating and embedding the 2024 engagement principles to help public bodies to not confer legitimacy funding, crucially, or influence on extremist groups.
So there is a whole body of work being undertaken, and the annual State of Extremism report will be published in 2024. Several members talked about universities incredibly important , and the very powerful report that members referred to, which I have also read, and absolutely shocking statistics that members have, that members have quoted. I was very privileged to be at a round table with members of various universities. The office for students, Lord Mann, several representatives from the Jewish community talking about anti-Semitism in our universities.
And I know that there is a big programme of work underway to look at training to make sure there is funding to support new guidance from the office for students to invest in the Jewish University Chaplaincy services, and to make sure we are working across different departments, which was also mentioned to tackle this issue. From a policing point of view, my engagement on this issue is largely around some of the smaller, unplanned protests that happen in Jewish spaces and and just being clear and trying to work with local police in those situations as to who is responsible and how how are those issues going to be tackled? Yes.
10:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The policing point. Could I commend the police in Barnet in particular in that run up to the local elections, which is always a tense time and just put on record how outstanding the communications was and also the reassurance and the work with our local leaders, both Conservative and Labour on Barnet Council.
10:55
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Can I thank my honourable friend for that praise and I'm sure that will be well appreciated and I would endorse what she has said. Absolutely. Members asked about the IRGC and the extra work that is being done beyond the sanctioning of that. Of course, we've sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, as well as 550 Iranian individuals. Iran has been placed on the enhanced tier of the Foreign Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, and we are going after the criminal networks, proxies, enablers and illicit finance networks used by the IRGC, including sanctions against criminal proxies.
So there is a lot of work being done. Then. Members asked when the David Bell Report will be published. That will be this autumn. Again, important work about tackling anti-Semitism in schools. I should touch on the funding that we have put in place following the awful attacks that we have seen in recent times, and an absolutely dismal story of anti-Semitism and violence that we absolutely, as a government have to respond to.
We last April provided an additional £25 million initially to fund increased officer patrols and disruption deployments, and we spent time just before the summer recess having a series of meetings with Jewish community colleagues, Jewish leaders and others, including a summit in Downing Street talking about what extra was required. And just before the summer, we announced over £250 million of additional funding for the police to tackle anti-Semitism over the next three years.
That does include training for police officers, which is something that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson asked about. anti-Semitism training will be rolled out across policing. As part of that work. That work is being obviously largely done in our big cities where our Jewish communities are. Most are living , and £85.8 million of that will be allocated to the Metropolitan Police Service, and that will deliver 300 dedicated personnel to support the work that I know the Metropolitan Police are have already been doing .
Other areas Hertfordshire, Essex, Northumbria, Sussex, Thames Valley, West Midlands and West Yorkshire will also be funded. I'm aware I haven't even really begun my speech, but I need to end. Can I just end by where I started saying thank you to everyone for their contributions. This is a journey we are absolutely committed to ensuring our Jewish communities feel safe where they live and proud of their religion, and we will do whatever we need to do to make sure that can be delivered.
Thank you.
So there is a lot of work being done. Then. Members asked when the David Bell Report will be published. That will be this autumn. Again, important work about tackling anti-Semitism in schools. I should touch on the funding that we have put in place following the awful attacks that we have seen in recent times, and an absolutely dismal story of anti-Semitism and violence that we absolutely, as a government have to respond to.
We last April provided an additional £25 million initially to fund increased officer patrols and disruption deployments, and we spent time just before the summer recess having a series of meetings with Jewish community colleagues, Jewish leaders and others, including a summit in Downing Street talking about what extra was required. And just before the summer, we announced over £250 million of additional funding for the police to tackle anti-Semitism over the next three years.
That does include training for police officers, which is something that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson asked about. anti-Semitism training will be rolled out across policing. As part of that work. That work is being obviously largely done in our big cities where our Jewish communities are. Most are living , and £85.8 million of that will be allocated to the Metropolitan Police Service, and that will deliver 300 dedicated personnel to support the work that I know the Metropolitan Police are have already been doing .
Other areas Hertfordshire, Essex, Northumbria, Sussex, Thames Valley, West Midlands and West Yorkshire will also be funded. I'm aware I haven't even really begun my speech, but I need to end. Can I just end by where I started saying thank you to everyone for their contributions. This is a journey we are absolutely committed to ensuring our Jewish communities feel safe where they live and proud of their religion, and we will do whatever we need to do to make sure that can be delivered.
Thank you.
10:58
10:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
an excellent debate. It's always a good debate when we want to say more, but we couldn't fit it in. And we also thank everybody from across all the parties for contributing to it. This problem of tackling anti-Semitism will take the whole of our polity, which means all of us local national school governors, public sector workers, the private sector, trade union colleagues, it will take everybody to look at this in the eye and to sort it.
So we've had a good debate as the as the government minister said, it's a journey. Very pleased that the Prime Minister is so intimately aware of the Manchester picture. And I know that he's also engaged with London Board of Deputy colleagues as well. So we look forward to a brighter future and to working together to tackle the scourge of anti-Semitism in our communities.
So we've had a good debate as the as the government minister said, it's a journey. Very pleased that the Prime Minister is so intimately aware of the Manchester picture. And I know that he's also engaged with London Board of Deputy colleagues as well. So we look forward to a brighter future and to working together to tackle the scourge of anti-Semitism in our communities.
10:59
11:00
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Thank you, Sir Christopher. I beg to move that this House has considered World Suicide Prevention Day, and I am grateful to have secured this debate. And it is a pleasure to serve with you as chair of it . Now, this Thursday is World Suicide Prevention Day, an event marked through the World Health Organization. Each year, the 10th of September provides a moment for individuals, communities and governments around the globe to unite behind one clear, unambiguous message .
And and, and that is that suicides are preventable. And I will give way.
And and, and that is that suicides are preventable. And I will give way.
11:01
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Bringing this forward for World Suicide Prevention Day and and highlight a pecan, please. The Farm Safety Network. Some 450 farmers were asked under the age of 40. 92% of them identified poor mental health as one of the leading hidden problems facing farmers today. These challenges can be further compounded by stigma. Reluctance to seek help felt particularly prevalent in rural communities. Is the honourable lady aware of the challenges faced by people in rural farming communities when trying to access mental health support? And does the honourable lady agree that more must be done for this sector, who are overwhelmingly seem to face the isolation? Thank you.
11:01
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Well, I thank the honourable member for that intervention. I am indeed aware of the work and the and the difficulties for the farming community, and it's important that we address those as well. So at this year, as in the last two years, the theme for World Suicide Prevention Day is Changing the Narrative on suicide, accompanied by a direct call to action. To start the conversation, I will give way.
11:02
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Also, thank you for the amazing work that she continues to do day in, day out on this particular subject. I filmed a documentary last week with called Walking Men. It's out later this year, but it's very much about how we support local groups to get men talking on a regular basis. And I wonder if you'd join me in saying thank you to all of those people out there that do that. But also, did she agree with me? The government needs to get behind those local groups who know their area, know their people and can make a massive difference.
11:02
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Absolutely. Well, I thank the honourable member for his intervention, and I'm very pleased to hear about that work. And I certainly agree that it's absolutely vital that we support all of those who are taking efforts locally to address the the issue of suicide. So changing the narrative means a conscious, collective shift away from the culture of silence, stigma and misunderstanding that has plagued this subject for generations. It requires us to move towards openness, empathy, and genuine support to create an environment where people feel able to speak openly about their distress without fear of judgement.
We must reach a point where talking about suicidal thoughts is met with compassion rather than fear, and we are seeking help is viewed as a sign of strength. For my honourable friend. I will give way. I thank my honourable friend for Blaydon and Concert for this very timely and very important debate. And the point of change in the narrative is very, very important. So with my honourable friend, support me in congratulating Alfie Squad, who are here today for, well Prevention Suicide Prevention Day.
But all the football clubs, including Everton and Liverpool, for the work that they do in terms of engaging with people with suicidal thoughts. Yeah, well, I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I look forward to meeting Alfie squad later today. They are doing a great job on suicide prevention in her area. And of course I will come on to the Premier League shortly. So the statistics globally, the World Health Organization estimates that suicide is a major public health challenge.
Changing, claiming the lives of more than 720 000 people every year. And in the UK, the latest ONS figures show that there were 7147 deaths registered where the cause was recorded as suicide. We also know from the data that men account for 3 in 4 of these deaths, and that suicide is the biggest single cause of death for men under the age of 50. I will.
We must reach a point where talking about suicidal thoughts is met with compassion rather than fear, and we are seeking help is viewed as a sign of strength. For my honourable friend. I will give way. I thank my honourable friend for Blaydon and Concert for this very timely and very important debate. And the point of change in the narrative is very, very important. So with my honourable friend, support me in congratulating Alfie Squad, who are here today for, well Prevention Suicide Prevention Day.
But all the football clubs, including Everton and Liverpool, for the work that they do in terms of engaging with people with suicidal thoughts. Yeah, well, I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I look forward to meeting Alfie squad later today. They are doing a great job on suicide prevention in her area. And of course I will come on to the Premier League shortly. So the statistics globally, the World Health Organization estimates that suicide is a major public health challenge.
Changing, claiming the lives of more than 720 000 people every year. And in the UK, the latest ONS figures show that there were 7147 deaths registered where the cause was recorded as suicide. We also know from the data that men account for 3 in 4 of these deaths, and that suicide is the biggest single cause of death for men under the age of 50. I will.
11:05
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Thank you. I thank the member for securing this important debate and for all of her dedication and hard work in this space. As the chair of the construction Appg and having previously served on the Male Suicide Appg, I'm concerned that the construction industry faces a suicide risk of 3.7 times higher than the national average. So will she join with me in ensuring that the men's health strategy moves from paper into practical action in workplaces, and particularly in the construction industry? Because when we talk about workers coming home safely, surely that must mean both physically and mentally.
11:05
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Well, again, I thank her for that intervention and having done some work with the construction sector, I know exactly what she's talking about and how much attention must be paid to this issue . In my own region, Sir Christopher, the North East. Sadly, we have the highest number of deaths by suicide, and this is not a league table that we want to top. The latest figures put the north east rate at 15.1 deaths per 100 000 people.
For men who've been referred to secondary mental health services, that rate climbs to 157.8 per 100 000. This is a harsh reality that demands urgent, targeted intervention and whenever we see these statistics in Parliament, we must immediately remind ourselves that there are real people behind these numbers. Each one of those individuals whose life was cut short leaves behind a devastating legacy of grief. The ripple effects of a single suicide spread relentlessly through families, circles of friends and workplaces, and inflict severe social and emotional consequences on entire communities.
I will give way, and I thank my honourable friend for giving way. I'd very much like all of us here today, acknowledge the tremendous work she does on this. It's just inspirational. Can I take the opportunity, as she mentions families to raise the to thank my constituent Emma Webb, who my honourable friend is aware of, who very tragically lost her daughter Brody, aged just 16 and has spent years now tirelessly fundraising and raising awareness of suicide prevention alongside the bands who are doing a benefit for the Samaritans in the pub.
There's lots of work going on locally we should really acknowledge.
For men who've been referred to secondary mental health services, that rate climbs to 157.8 per 100 000. This is a harsh reality that demands urgent, targeted intervention and whenever we see these statistics in Parliament, we must immediately remind ourselves that there are real people behind these numbers. Each one of those individuals whose life was cut short leaves behind a devastating legacy of grief. The ripple effects of a single suicide spread relentlessly through families, circles of friends and workplaces, and inflict severe social and emotional consequences on entire communities.
I will give way, and I thank my honourable friend for giving way. I'd very much like all of us here today, acknowledge the tremendous work she does on this. It's just inspirational. Can I take the opportunity, as she mentions families to raise the to thank my constituent Emma Webb, who my honourable friend is aware of, who very tragically lost her daughter Brody, aged just 16 and has spent years now tirelessly fundraising and raising awareness of suicide prevention alongside the bands who are doing a benefit for the Samaritans in the pub.
There's lots of work going on locally we should really acknowledge.
11:07
11:07
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Again, I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I do, in fact, know the campaign and have met your constituents. As she pulled her pony along to raise money, and she's doing tremendous work in that area. So alongside the immeasurable human cost, there's also a stark economic reality. Extensive statistical work conducted by the Samaritans and provided by mind calculates the economic cost of a single suicide at roughly £1.46 million, and no one in this room would ever wish to reduce the human life to a Treasury balance sheet.
But those figures demonstrate that proper investment in suicide prevention is an economic necessity, as well as a clear moral imperative preventing.
But those figures demonstrate that proper investment in suicide prevention is an economic necessity, as well as a clear moral imperative preventing.
11:08
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Thank you. I'm grateful to the honourable member for giving way. And can I add my thanks to everybody else for her incredibly important work in this field. Alongside my constituent, Philip Pirrie, I have been calling on the government to launch a public health campaign to tackle the stigma around suicide. Former health secretaries have actively supported the call , alongside the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of General Practitioners, and the honourable member herself has also backed my campaign.
So will she agree with me that the Prime Minister needs to prioritise breaking down barriers surrounding stigma, and work cross-party with members of this House to support my campaign?
So will she agree with me that the Prime Minister needs to prioritise breaking down barriers surrounding stigma, and work cross-party with members of this House to support my campaign?
11:09
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Well, I thank the honourable member for her intervention. I will be mentioning her constituent later, and I'm aware of the great work that he does after his own loss of his son by suicide, and I certainly agree that all of us need to get behind this campaign. And I have no doubt that the Prime Minister would be keen to do that as well. So the statistics paint a bleak picture. But today I want to focus on the positive work being done across the UK on and around World Suicide Prevention Day to prevent suicides and to change the narrative.
There are so many organisations and individuals working to build hope and fighting to reverse these trends, offering real, practical help and support to people who are struggling. And I want to talk about some of those now. When we look at our statutory services, we must recognise, of course, the vital role played by our National Health Service. And I want to pay tribute to the extraordinary dedication of NHS mental health staff, who work under immense pressure every single day to provide compassionate, life saving care to those in crisis.
But NHS talking therapies and other work can only support those who are successfully referred, and a significant gap remains in who accesses this care. For instance, despite having acute mental health needs, men account for only 36% of referrals to NHS talking therapies. This mismatch shows that even with the outstanding commitment of front line clinicians, statutory services cannot carry the weight of suicide prevention alone. They rely on close partnerships with community and voluntary organisations to reach people before they reach crisis.
And I want to yes.
There are so many organisations and individuals working to build hope and fighting to reverse these trends, offering real, practical help and support to people who are struggling. And I want to talk about some of those now. When we look at our statutory services, we must recognise, of course, the vital role played by our National Health Service. And I want to pay tribute to the extraordinary dedication of NHS mental health staff, who work under immense pressure every single day to provide compassionate, life saving care to those in crisis.
But NHS talking therapies and other work can only support those who are successfully referred, and a significant gap remains in who accesses this care. For instance, despite having acute mental health needs, men account for only 36% of referrals to NHS talking therapies. This mismatch shows that even with the outstanding commitment of front line clinicians, statutory services cannot carry the weight of suicide prevention alone. They rely on close partnerships with community and voluntary organisations to reach people before they reach crisis.
And I want to yes.
11:10
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
I thank you for giving way, and I commend her for her courageous work on this and for bringing forward the debate today. I wonder if she'd join me in thanking those organisations in my constituency of Aylesbury, including Scott Grover's work with his men's walking and talking group, and including the fantastic work of Steve and Talk club. Lovely approach whereby they will sit and talk and listen. They won't just ask if people are okay.
They'll say, on a scale of 1 to 10, how are you feeling today? And that will open up conversations about mental health and suicide in such a powerful way. Will she join me in thanking all of my fantastic local groups for their efforts?
They'll say, on a scale of 1 to 10, how are you feeling today? And that will open up conversations about mental health and suicide in such a powerful way. Will she join me in thanking all of my fantastic local groups for their efforts?
11:11
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Well, I thank the honourable member for that intervention, and I most certainly do join her in thanking them for that work. And it's good to hear about so much attention being given to men walking and talking in local groups where they can access help. And I suppose we should mention Andy's Man Club as well, who do amazing work across the country to get men talking. I will give way.
11:11
11:11
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
and for all her work on this. And I struggle with my own mental health after the traumatic birth of my son, as I think she knows. And it was friends and family, including the honourable member for Scarborough and Whitby, that helped me. But also in York, we've got fantastic local groups like Mindfulness and Professor Jack Woodhams. So would she praise them and just thank them for getting men to talk, be that through sport, football or walking?
11:12
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Well, I thank the honourable member for that, for his contribution, and I thank him as well for sharing the struggles that he has had, because by talking, it's we can learn more about it and tackle the issue. And I certainly join him in thanking mental illness and and the other group that he mentioned in his constituency. It's amazing work that people are doing. So I want to talk about the Samaritans and Samaritans began in 1953 in the City of London, founded by Chad Varah, and arising from his experience of seeing lives lost to suicide.
People who have no one to speak to. And so he advertised a telephone number which those contemplating suicide could call to speak to someone about how they were feeling. Sir Christopher, that work continues today and is built upon by the many outreach activities and the policy work led by Samaritans. And I want to thank the many Samaritans volunteers who continue to listen and to reach out in their local area to prevent suicides, including those.
Sir Christopher in my local Tyneside Samaritans branch. So tomorrow evening, Samaritans will walk will mark World Suicide Prevention Day, with the reception in speaker's house held alongside the Premier League. And now the Premier League is doing excellent work in using the vast reach of football to support men, encouraging open conversations among groups that traditionally do not seek help. And we see a similar commitment from the charity mind, who will be marking World Suicide Prevention Day in this House on Thursday morning.
I'm incredibly proud to sponsor their parliamentary reception this week, which will bring together campaigners, partners and clinicians to champion minds vital work in our communities and ensure that suicide prevention remains at the very top of our legislative agenda.
People who have no one to speak to. And so he advertised a telephone number which those contemplating suicide could call to speak to someone about how they were feeling. Sir Christopher, that work continues today and is built upon by the many outreach activities and the policy work led by Samaritans. And I want to thank the many Samaritans volunteers who continue to listen and to reach out in their local area to prevent suicides, including those.
Sir Christopher in my local Tyneside Samaritans branch. So tomorrow evening, Samaritans will walk will mark World Suicide Prevention Day, with the reception in speaker's house held alongside the Premier League. And now the Premier League is doing excellent work in using the vast reach of football to support men, encouraging open conversations among groups that traditionally do not seek help. And we see a similar commitment from the charity mind, who will be marking World Suicide Prevention Day in this House on Thursday morning.
I'm incredibly proud to sponsor their parliamentary reception this week, which will bring together campaigners, partners and clinicians to champion minds vital work in our communities and ensure that suicide prevention remains at the very top of our legislative agenda.
11:14
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
On that point, would you give way? I will give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. She's making an excellent speech. Autistic people are three times more likely to die or attempt suicide than non-autistic people, and the 2023 suicide prevention strategy for England was the first to recognise autistic people at being higher risk of suicide. Does my honourable friend agree with me that we really do need an update on the progress for autistic people against this strategy, and how the government intends to incorporate autism into future suicide prevention strategies.
11:14
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Well, I thank the honourable member for that intervention, and I do most certainly agree with her concerns about the need for action on autism, and she may be pleased to hear that the Appg on suicide and self-harm and on autism will be doing some joint work on this in the near future, so I thank her for that contribution. I'm sure the Minister has heard her request for an update on that. So. I'm unashamedly now going to name check several organisations in the North East, and I do so with some trepidation, as I know there are so many other groups which I won't be able to mention.
We benefit immensely from the presence of the James Place charity in Newcastle, who provide specialist, rapid clinical interventions for men in suicidal crisis and the way they operate in our region is saving lives. I also want to highlight the incredible work of If You Care Share, based in County Durham, their roots are embedded in the local community, offering emotional support and postvention care and formed from personal experience following the death by suicide of one of the family, a young man, which I know still affects the family and a much wider group of people, and is still a real impetus for their work and their fundraising.
And I must also recognise the charity sobs survivors of Bereavement by suicide, who provide peer led support to families navigating a uniquely complex and isolating form of grief. And I, I will.
We benefit immensely from the presence of the James Place charity in Newcastle, who provide specialist, rapid clinical interventions for men in suicidal crisis and the way they operate in our region is saving lives. I also want to highlight the incredible work of If You Care Share, based in County Durham, their roots are embedded in the local community, offering emotional support and postvention care and formed from personal experience following the death by suicide of one of the family, a young man, which I know still affects the family and a much wider group of people, and is still a real impetus for their work and their fundraising.
And I must also recognise the charity sobs survivors of Bereavement by suicide, who provide peer led support to families navigating a uniquely complex and isolating form of grief. And I, I will.
11:16
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
As she's reading out a list of really very good charities, and I congratulate her on getting this debate. Could I just in case she wasn't going to draw her attention back to ripple, who the the Alice Hendy, who we gave an award at the centre for Social Justice, did this Brown shield technical device that allows. Therefore, every time there's a harmful site that they're searching, it pops up and tells them where they can go for help, support, etc.
that has had a huge effect and it really needs to be rolled out further into schools etc. as well. But I wondered if she might and I know she knows the charity itself. Yes.
that has had a huge effect and it really needs to be rolled out further into schools etc. as well. But I wondered if she might and I know she knows the charity itself. Yes.
11:17
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Well, I thank the honourable member for his intervention and he's touched on another angle, which of course is, is the the world of the internet, which is providing such a challenge. And the work that ripple are doing is really important in preventing that harm. But there is so much more to do. But I do congratulate them on their award as well. So I just wanted to mention, lastly, Jamie, the Jewish Mental Health organisation with whom I've done a good deal of work and it seems particularly appropriate given the last date, the last debate that we mentioned that, and they do fantastic work in London and beyond and are regular contributors to the Appg.
And then there are individuals who have transformed personal tragedy into relentless campaigning. Philip Perry, who we've heard about already, who's worked on an assessment of suicide risk and is now pushing for training on that to be mandatory for NHS staff. The Three Dads Walking campaign has captured the attention of the entire country after losing their daughter Sophie, Beth and Emily to suicide, they marched together across the UK to demand that suicide prevention be taught in schools.
I will.
And then there are individuals who have transformed personal tragedy into relentless campaigning. Philip Perry, who we've heard about already, who's worked on an assessment of suicide risk and is now pushing for training on that to be mandatory for NHS staff. The Three Dads Walking campaign has captured the attention of the entire country after losing their daughter Sophie, Beth and Emily to suicide, they marched together across the UK to demand that suicide prevention be taught in schools.
I will.
11:18
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
I think it's amazing that my friend is highlighting the fact that so very often out of tragedy comes amazing families campaigning. And I wanted to raise the case of Chloe Holland and Skye Roberts, whose families have been campaigning because their daughters took their or their family members took their own life following coercive control. And does she agree with me that we must recognise this devastating link between coercive control and not only ensure justice, but ensure that we put properly recognise and respond to this ? Well? The
11:19
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
honourable member makes a really important point and I can tell I congratulate the family. Congratulate doesn't seem the right word, but they're doing such amazing work in her community that it's really important to mention that. And she will again be pleased to hear that part of the work plan for the Appg is actually the link between suicide and domestic abuse in in its various forms. So I look forward to working with her on that.
I've mentioned I've mentioned the three dads walking who are doing absolutely fantastic work, and we're seeing changes to the curriculum this year to pick that up and make that show that children are able to talk about suicide in a safe and age appropriate way. Now, most working adults spend a large part of their day at work, and employers have a clear role to play. And last year, the British Standards Institution published BS 30480, the first formal standard for workplace suicide prevention, and I was pleased to work with them alongside employers, trade unions and suicide prevention experts.
The document the guidance has now been downloaded more than 13,500 times. Yet despite the intense amount of work being done by these charities, campaigners and so many others, we have not yet managed to change the narrative completely. I know that I risk sounding like a broken record in this house, but while the overall figures have stubbornly refused to come down, I will continue to be a broken record. We need to bring these numbers down.
As the World Health Organisation says, changing the narratives needs systemic change. And as the Mental Health Foundation has argued for years, we need early intervention so people receive support before their situation becomes acute. The new yeah.
I've mentioned I've mentioned the three dads walking who are doing absolutely fantastic work, and we're seeing changes to the curriculum this year to pick that up and make that show that children are able to talk about suicide in a safe and age appropriate way. Now, most working adults spend a large part of their day at work, and employers have a clear role to play. And last year, the British Standards Institution published BS 30480, the first formal standard for workplace suicide prevention, and I was pleased to work with them alongside employers, trade unions and suicide prevention experts.
The document the guidance has now been downloaded more than 13,500 times. Yet despite the intense amount of work being done by these charities, campaigners and so many others, we have not yet managed to change the narrative completely. I know that I risk sounding like a broken record in this house, but while the overall figures have stubbornly refused to come down, I will continue to be a broken record. We need to bring these numbers down.
As the World Health Organisation says, changing the narratives needs systemic change. And as the Mental Health Foundation has argued for years, we need early intervention so people receive support before their situation becomes acute. The new yeah.
11:21
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
Can I join everyone else in congratulating her securing this debate and a lifetime of support for this cause? She makes such a valid point about changing the narrative and the stigma around suicide. This government has made an incredible announcement on £343 million for walking mental health services. We're asking people to talk about how they're feeling, about how bad their how bad their mental health is, but they need those walk in centres to be able to get the treatment at the right at the point that they're feeling suicidal.
So would she join me in calling on my local ICB to make sure Redditch, with the highest rate of poor mental health in Worcestershire, gets that mental health health walking centre it so deserves.
So would she join me in calling on my local ICB to make sure Redditch, with the highest rate of poor mental health in Worcestershire, gets that mental health health walking centre it so deserves.
11:22
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
I thank the honourable member for his intervention. I'm not sure that I know about enough about the area to tell the ICB what to do, but I'm sure he does and I'm sure he is making that case to the ICB for those centres in his area. So the new mental health hubs and emergency centres announced over the summer will be, as he says, a vital step forward in providing community based support through capital funding. And I hope we'll be followed by the revenue funding to provide the staff and resources to deliver consistent care.
So I hope the Minister can provide a bit more detail on that revenue question. I should, of course, welcome the Minister to her new post, and I'm glad that she's here today to answer. The national Suicide
So I hope the Minister can provide a bit more detail on that revenue question. I should, of course, welcome the Minister to her new post, and I'm glad that she's here today to answer. The national Suicide
11:23
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
The National Suicide Prevention Strategy has just passed its halfway point, making this the ideal moment to assess what's working and where we need to do more. We've seen a great many actions arising from the strategy, which I commend, but sadly, the numbers haven't shifted. And for the men who make up 75% of those who die by , how can we address their specific concerns? So can the Minister say what actions will be taken to revise the strategy so that it can achieve its goal of reducing suicides? And can the minister say what she will do to make sure that mental health has parity of esteem with physical health? Another debate in this chamber that I have not so long ago.
And will she, of course, join with me and others who have spoken in this debate to thank all those third sector organisations and individuals who do so much to change the narrative and recognise their importance in preventing suicide. I hope the Minister will continue to work closely with me and the Appg to ensure that these strategies deliver the systemic change we desperately need. Sir Christopher, On World Suicide Prevention Day, we reflect on what we must do to make a real difference.
We can achieve that by ending the silence, funding the services and treating mental health with the urgency it demands. That's how we finally change the narrative, and that's how we save lives.
And will she, of course, join with me and others who have spoken in this debate to thank all those third sector organisations and individuals who do so much to change the narrative and recognise their importance in preventing suicide. I hope the Minister will continue to work closely with me and the Appg to ensure that these strategies deliver the systemic change we desperately need. Sir Christopher, On World Suicide Prevention Day, we reflect on what we must do to make a real difference.
We can achieve that by ending the silence, funding the services and treating mental health with the urgency it demands. That's how we finally change the narrative, and that's how we save lives.
11:26
11:26
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
Thank you, Sir Christopher. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I must begin by thanking my honourable friend, whose leadership, since she joined this House on this issue has been second to none, and we are all extremely grateful to her for it. I hope that colleagues will understand that this debate does conclude at 11:30. So the first thing that I must say is I'm going to do my best to make some remarks on behalf of the government, but I would just like to assure members that I have taken notes of all the contributions that colleagues have made, and will be relaying those to the teams working on the mental health strategy, and I hope that colleagues will know that my door is always open to those who want to influence the forthcoming mental health strategy, particularly on this issue, and I look forward to working with you all.
Every life lost to suicide is one life too many, and that's why making sure fewer lives are lost to suicide. As my hon. Friend just said, is such a priority. And as we come together to discuss World Suicide Prevention Day, I would like to reaffirm the government's commitment to delivering the suicide prevention strategy for England. We have already made important progress in improving our ability to detect emerging trends through near real time surveillance, to strengthening suicide prevention practice across services, and investing in targeted support for those groups, particularly at risk, which a number of members mentioned and is clearly very important.
Colleagues have said that the theme is changing the narrative that provides us with this opportunity to reflect on how we approach suicide prevention, and it challenges us to do more to prevent suicide. We want a society where people feel able and safe to discuss their mental health. As members have done, particularly the member for York, who made an important contribution on his own mental health. We want people to feel able and safe to discuss their mental health and supported to express that they are experiencing suicidal thoughts and seek help, and mental health support has a vital role to play in that.
The ten year health plan set out a bold ambition to reform the NHS and change the way mental health support is provided, investing £343 million worth of capital funding to make that change. But we need to go further and that is why we are developing a cross-government mental health strategy for England. And my friend mentioned that I am relatively new to this role. It's good to be the Minister of State for Mental Health.
Whilst I am new to the Department of Health and Social Care, I know that members will know that I am not new to this issue, particularly in the impact of mental health on getting people into work and moving on in work. So I am looking forward to hitting the ground running with colleagues on this. The strategy will aim to transform mental health care, to get a system that responds earlier and helps people to stay active and participating, which we know is so preventative for good mental health.
Like the suicide prevention strategy, it will look beyond the NHS and consider the role of schools, workplaces, the voluntary sector. For all the reasons that colleagues have mentioned on the importance of the voluntary sector. We need to meet people where they are now. Suicide is complicated. There are a range of factors outside the mental health system that we also need to address. And the suicide prevention strategy identifies evidence based factors including financial difficulty, substance misuse, harmful gambling, a topic I personally feel very passionate about domestic abuse, physical illness, social isolation, and loneliness, and many of these risk factors are closely linked with wider health inequalities.
So this is a complicated subject. Opportunities to prevent suicide do not exist solely within mental health services, and three quarters of people who die by suicide are not in contact with NHS mental health services, but they are in contact with other services and other support systems. So we must make the most of those opportunities. And for example, just to inform colleagues, my ministerial colleague Baroness Merron, alongside the brilliant charity Money and Mental health, convened senior stakeholders from financial services earlier this year to discuss the role that they can play in supporting people at risk of suicide, both customers and employees.
And it's that kind of approach I think we need to model. We will identify and maximise opportunities to make sure that every person requiring support can get help readily in their local community. As colleagues have asked for a principle that should underpin our approach, now we know that colleagues have mentioned the impact that this has on men. It's so important that we recognise that, particularly middle aged men at risk of suicide, who might need support from multiple services and colleagues will be aware of the men's health strategy that we announced recently.
And I just want to finish, if I may, briefly, by mentioning the work of the Premier League football. I know only too well gets men talking and I'm so proud, as my colleague from Merseyside mentioned, that we've taken the opportunity to make the national game a place that helps people open up and to talk, and I say more of that.
Every life lost to suicide is one life too many, and that's why making sure fewer lives are lost to suicide. As my hon. Friend just said, is such a priority. And as we come together to discuss World Suicide Prevention Day, I would like to reaffirm the government's commitment to delivering the suicide prevention strategy for England. We have already made important progress in improving our ability to detect emerging trends through near real time surveillance, to strengthening suicide prevention practice across services, and investing in targeted support for those groups, particularly at risk, which a number of members mentioned and is clearly very important.
Colleagues have said that the theme is changing the narrative that provides us with this opportunity to reflect on how we approach suicide prevention, and it challenges us to do more to prevent suicide. We want a society where people feel able and safe to discuss their mental health. As members have done, particularly the member for York, who made an important contribution on his own mental health. We want people to feel able and safe to discuss their mental health and supported to express that they are experiencing suicidal thoughts and seek help, and mental health support has a vital role to play in that.
The ten year health plan set out a bold ambition to reform the NHS and change the way mental health support is provided, investing £343 million worth of capital funding to make that change. But we need to go further and that is why we are developing a cross-government mental health strategy for England. And my friend mentioned that I am relatively new to this role. It's good to be the Minister of State for Mental Health.
Whilst I am new to the Department of Health and Social Care, I know that members will know that I am not new to this issue, particularly in the impact of mental health on getting people into work and moving on in work. So I am looking forward to hitting the ground running with colleagues on this. The strategy will aim to transform mental health care, to get a system that responds earlier and helps people to stay active and participating, which we know is so preventative for good mental health.
Like the suicide prevention strategy, it will look beyond the NHS and consider the role of schools, workplaces, the voluntary sector. For all the reasons that colleagues have mentioned on the importance of the voluntary sector. We need to meet people where they are now. Suicide is complicated. There are a range of factors outside the mental health system that we also need to address. And the suicide prevention strategy identifies evidence based factors including financial difficulty, substance misuse, harmful gambling, a topic I personally feel very passionate about domestic abuse, physical illness, social isolation, and loneliness, and many of these risk factors are closely linked with wider health inequalities.
So this is a complicated subject. Opportunities to prevent suicide do not exist solely within mental health services, and three quarters of people who die by suicide are not in contact with NHS mental health services, but they are in contact with other services and other support systems. So we must make the most of those opportunities. And for example, just to inform colleagues, my ministerial colleague Baroness Merron, alongside the brilliant charity Money and Mental health, convened senior stakeholders from financial services earlier this year to discuss the role that they can play in supporting people at risk of suicide, both customers and employees.
And it's that kind of approach I think we need to model. We will identify and maximise opportunities to make sure that every person requiring support can get help readily in their local community. As colleagues have asked for a principle that should underpin our approach, now we know that colleagues have mentioned the impact that this has on men. It's so important that we recognise that, particularly middle aged men at risk of suicide, who might need support from multiple services and colleagues will be aware of the men's health strategy that we announced recently.
And I just want to finish, if I may, briefly, by mentioning the work of the Premier League football. I know only too well gets men talking and I'm so proud, as my colleague from Merseyside mentioned, that we've taken the opportunity to make the national game a place that helps people open up and to talk, and I say more of that.
11:37
14:31
14:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'd like to move this House as considered for conflict in Sudan. Thank you, Doctor Allen Khan, may I start by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? I'm pleased to have been able to secure this debate today as it comes at a critical moment. The war in Sudan is now entering its fourth year and has been labelled the world's worst humanitarian crisis. Yet for some reason, it's still barely registers in political discourse.
Last week, a humanitarian convoy delivering life saving aid to Kadugli, where communities are at risk of famine , was attacked. A UN report found that sexual violence is widespread and being used as a weapon of war in Sudan. The same report found that at least 13 victims died, mostly after brutal gang rapes, with the youngest victim only nine years old. For millions of Sudanese people, this war is a daily struggle for survival.
I suspect many people in this country could not explain why a paramilitary force operating in Sudan now stands accused of genocide. That gap between the scale of what is happening and the attention it receives is part of the reason it has been allowed to go on for so long. Just now, I was listening to the Foreign Secretary's statement on the banning of Israeli goods in illegal settlements. The chamber was packed, and rightly so. I would argue that this crisis requires the same attention from us.
The United Nations puts the number of people in Sudan needing humanitarian assistance this year at 33.7 million. That is more than any other country on earth. 90 million people are displaced inside Sudan, and over 4 million have left it entirely. That being the equivalent to the population of Greater Manchester. More areas are in or at risk of famine than anywhere else in the world.
And yet, at the same time, the UN's own response plan for Sudan is funded at only 40% of what is needed this year. That shortfall already has a body count. Hospitals in Darfur have closed for want of money to keep them running. Cutting off tens of thousands of displaced people from anything resembling care. During the summer recess, I took part in a parliamentary delegation to Egypt, where I saw firsthand the impact of Sudan's conflict on the region.
My visit brought home that this is a regional crisis, one that cannot be contained contained within Sudan's borders. I will do.
Last week, a humanitarian convoy delivering life saving aid to Kadugli, where communities are at risk of famine , was attacked. A UN report found that sexual violence is widespread and being used as a weapon of war in Sudan. The same report found that at least 13 victims died, mostly after brutal gang rapes, with the youngest victim only nine years old. For millions of Sudanese people, this war is a daily struggle for survival.
I suspect many people in this country could not explain why a paramilitary force operating in Sudan now stands accused of genocide. That gap between the scale of what is happening and the attention it receives is part of the reason it has been allowed to go on for so long. Just now, I was listening to the Foreign Secretary's statement on the banning of Israeli goods in illegal settlements. The chamber was packed, and rightly so. I would argue that this crisis requires the same attention from us.
The United Nations puts the number of people in Sudan needing humanitarian assistance this year at 33.7 million. That is more than any other country on earth. 90 million people are displaced inside Sudan, and over 4 million have left it entirely. That being the equivalent to the population of Greater Manchester. More areas are in or at risk of famine than anywhere else in the world.
And yet, at the same time, the UN's own response plan for Sudan is funded at only 40% of what is needed this year. That shortfall already has a body count. Hospitals in Darfur have closed for want of money to keep them running. Cutting off tens of thousands of displaced people from anything resembling care. During the summer recess, I took part in a parliamentary delegation to Egypt, where I saw firsthand the impact of Sudan's conflict on the region.
My visit brought home that this is a regional crisis, one that cannot be contained contained within Sudan's borders. I will do.
14:33
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend and congratulate her on securing this debate. She's absolutely right that this is has been secured at a very timely moment. The quintet will, of course, visit Khartoum and start that visit a good officer's visit tomorrow. Does she agree? As my hon. Friend, agree with me. The firstly, the UK government has to continue supporting that diplomatic work of the quintet, but secondly, that the government will continue to make a difference by sanctioning those individuals who are involved in facilitating this dreadful civil war.
14:34
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and he is absolutely right, and I would urge the government to listen to his comments there and continue to place that pressure. My visit brought home that this is a regional crisis, not one that can be contained within Sudan's border. Egypt is the single largest host of people fleeing the conflict, with around 1.5 million refugees, placing significant pressure on communities and services already stretched thin at a UNHCR registration centre.
I heard directly from Sudanese refugees, some including elderly women and young children, who had travelled roughly 1400km from the Sudanese border just to register. That's the same distance as London to Rome. Their journeys underscored the human reality of displacement. These were not just another statistic. They were families who had walked away from everything they owned, because staying had become more dangerous than leaving. Egypt has played a prominent role in stabilizing the region, but its ability to manage this crisis alone is reaching a breaking point.
The question for Britain is not simply how much we spend on humanitarian assistance, but whether our support reaches people where they are and where the need is greatest. The registration centre I visited is facing immense pressure. Around 4000 refugees a day against a capacity built for 4000 a month. UNHCR's Egypt operation has a funding requirement of $133.5 million for 2026, but was only a quarter funded by the end of April, leaving a gap of more than $99 million.
That operation is currently receiving no UK funding at all, despite the UK's own record showing what effective support can achieve. Although I do recognise that the Fcdo funded North Africa Migrant and Development Project, delivered through the International Organisation for migration, has reached more than 22,000 migrants and host community members in Egypt since 24. I will give way. I'm
I heard directly from Sudanese refugees, some including elderly women and young children, who had travelled roughly 1400km from the Sudanese border just to register. That's the same distance as London to Rome. Their journeys underscored the human reality of displacement. These were not just another statistic. They were families who had walked away from everything they owned, because staying had become more dangerous than leaving. Egypt has played a prominent role in stabilizing the region, but its ability to manage this crisis alone is reaching a breaking point.
The question for Britain is not simply how much we spend on humanitarian assistance, but whether our support reaches people where they are and where the need is greatest. The registration centre I visited is facing immense pressure. Around 4000 refugees a day against a capacity built for 4000 a month. UNHCR's Egypt operation has a funding requirement of $133.5 million for 2026, but was only a quarter funded by the end of April, leaving a gap of more than $99 million.
That operation is currently receiving no UK funding at all, despite the UK's own record showing what effective support can achieve. Although I do recognise that the Fcdo funded North Africa Migrant and Development Project, delivered through the International Organisation for migration, has reached more than 22,000 migrants and host community members in Egypt since 24. I will give way. I'm
14:36
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
very grateful. She'd be typically generous in giving interventions. I was very pleased and privileged to join her on that delegation to Egypt. And at the event, she was speaking about where we met Sudanese refugees. The thing that struck me the most was the scale of medical need. Almost every participant in the round table was in need of some, either themselves or their family, in need of a doctor or some kind of medical support. So I wonder if she would agree with me and the support we're providing to the aid.
Of
Of
14:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
the cross-border drone attacks killed its own soldiers. Fighting has spread into Ethiopian territory around the Blue Mile, and while the world's attention sits elsewhere, Russia has been negotiating a 25 year naval facility at Port Sudan in exchange for weapons, a foothold on one of the most consequential trade corridors on earth secured while the country hosting it burns a war we are content to fund our way around rather than resolve is a war that keeps generating problems Britain will eventually have to deal with on someone else's terms.
As the UK's penholder for Sudan at the UN Security Council, Britain has significant diplomatic leverage and the government must use it, maintaining pressure for humanitarian troops, for civilian protection and unimpeded humanitarian access, and for a civilian led political process, including through the Berlin Principles agreed earlier this year. That leverage would carry more weight if we are not undercut by our own arms licensing decisions. There is evidence from the United Nations experts and from Amnesty International that has repeatedly linked the United Arab Emirates weapons, reaching the rapid support forces, and hundreds of millions of pounds of UK arms licences to the UAE have been approved during this war.
I would welcome the Minister's assurance that those licences are being tested properly against the risks that British made equipment ends up, however, indirectly fuelling the same conflict. We are asking the Security Council to end. Alongside this, I would urge the government to reaffirm its commitment to the UK's 146 million humanitarian funding for Sudan, a commitment made earlier this year while extending a meaningful funding to organisations on the ground, including the UNHCR's work with refugees in neighbouring countries.
Rather than focusing solely on Sudan itself, Britain has both the means and diplomatic standing to act. We can help ensure that people displaced by this war receive the protection and support they need, while using our influence to address the conflict that forced them from their homes in the first place. And many of them do want to return to their home. That was something that I heard loud and clear. I think of the women I met at that registration centre, who had walked 1400km simply to queue in the baking heat, just to be counted.
The least this house can do is to make sure they are not then forgotten. And the least our government can do is to recognise the scale and impact of this humanitarian crisis, and.
As the UK's penholder for Sudan at the UN Security Council, Britain has significant diplomatic leverage and the government must use it, maintaining pressure for humanitarian troops, for civilian protection and unimpeded humanitarian access, and for a civilian led political process, including through the Berlin Principles agreed earlier this year. That leverage would carry more weight if we are not undercut by our own arms licensing decisions. There is evidence from the United Nations experts and from Amnesty International that has repeatedly linked the United Arab Emirates weapons, reaching the rapid support forces, and hundreds of millions of pounds of UK arms licences to the UAE have been approved during this war.
I would welcome the Minister's assurance that those licences are being tested properly against the risks that British made equipment ends up, however, indirectly fuelling the same conflict. We are asking the Security Council to end. Alongside this, I would urge the government to reaffirm its commitment to the UK's 146 million humanitarian funding for Sudan, a commitment made earlier this year while extending a meaningful funding to organisations on the ground, including the UNHCR's work with refugees in neighbouring countries.
Rather than focusing solely on Sudan itself, Britain has both the means and diplomatic standing to act. We can help ensure that people displaced by this war receive the protection and support they need, while using our influence to address the conflict that forced them from their homes in the first place. And many of them do want to return to their home. That was something that I heard loud and clear. I think of the women I met at that registration centre, who had walked 1400km simply to queue in the baking heat, just to be counted.
The least this house can do is to make sure they are not then forgotten. And the least our government can do is to recognise the scale and impact of this humanitarian crisis, and.
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you. It's a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I really pay tribute to the honourable member for Gillingham and Rainham, not just for her very, very thoughtful contribution, but for securing this debate, because it's just so important that we take every opportunity that we can to shine a light on this conflict. And as a member of the International Development Committee, the committee has sought relentlessly to a bring forward evidence to discuss a the issue.
But we have failed in terms of getting the widespread coverage and attention on the issue that it most certainly deserves, and I would like to also recognise a. The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford and Knottingley for her focus on that issue during her time in office, and indeed, the honourable Right hon. Lady for Oxford East, who did the same, and I am sure that the new Minister, who I.
Welcome to her post, will, will do a. Likewise. Nevertheless, as I have said, Sudan remains chronically under. Reported as chair of the all party Group on nutrition for development. I want to focus most of my remarks today on the appalling reality of hunger and malnutrition, which represents some of the most brutal consequences of this ongoing conflict. Famine conditions are no longer a distant warning.
They are a reality already present . Acute malnutrition among children under five and breastfeeding mothers is projected to surge to 3.7 million a to last year, to nearly 4.2 million in 2026. Furthermore, Save the Children estimates that causes of severe acute malnutrition will raise will rise by a further 4% to a devastating 800 000. We saw the horrific practicalities of this crisis just two weeks ago, with the totally unacceptable attack on a World Food Programme convoy in Kordofan, civilian personnel were injured and life saving aid destroyed, and aid has become a weapon in this conflict.
So I do urge the minister to continue to exert every possible diplomatic lever to ensure that El will be does not suffer the same fate as El Fasher, where we saw starvation used as a weapon of war with local food supply chains systematically targeted in preparation for the siege and eventual massacre. And whilst I recognise that the Minister and her colleagues in Fcdo must navigate delicate regional dynamics, the government must not shy away from forcefully challenging.
But we have failed in terms of getting the widespread coverage and attention on the issue that it most certainly deserves, and I would like to also recognise a. The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford and Knottingley for her focus on that issue during her time in office, and indeed, the honourable Right hon. Lady for Oxford East, who did the same, and I am sure that the new Minister, who I.
Welcome to her post, will, will do a. Likewise. Nevertheless, as I have said, Sudan remains chronically under. Reported as chair of the all party Group on nutrition for development. I want to focus most of my remarks today on the appalling reality of hunger and malnutrition, which represents some of the most brutal consequences of this ongoing conflict. Famine conditions are no longer a distant warning.
They are a reality already present . Acute malnutrition among children under five and breastfeeding mothers is projected to surge to 3.7 million a to last year, to nearly 4.2 million in 2026. Furthermore, Save the Children estimates that causes of severe acute malnutrition will raise will rise by a further 4% to a devastating 800 000. We saw the horrific practicalities of this crisis just two weeks ago, with the totally unacceptable attack on a World Food Programme convoy in Kordofan, civilian personnel were injured and life saving aid destroyed, and aid has become a weapon in this conflict.
So I do urge the minister to continue to exert every possible diplomatic lever to ensure that El will be does not suffer the same fate as El Fasher, where we saw starvation used as a weapon of war with local food supply chains systematically targeted in preparation for the siege and eventual massacre. And whilst I recognise that the Minister and her colleagues in Fcdo must navigate delicate regional dynamics, the government must not shy away from forcefully challenging.
15:01
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And behind these numbers, of course, are people's lives, their stories, their unimaginable trauma and left 34 million people, two thirds of the population, in need of humanitarian support and grief, a family forced to flee their generational home, a child suffering from malnutrition, a woman, a girl or a baby who has survived sexual violence or that has died because of that sexual violence. These are some of the stories that some of my constituents embarking have shared with me.
I've spoken to constituents with family links to Sudan, fearing for their loved ones, others who are horrified at the events and the international complacency. Sudan needs an immediate ceasefire and aid into the country. That's why I support the government's efforts to keep Sudan, the Sudan , conflict, high on the international agenda, and I commend our previous Foreign Secretary for all her efforts, and in particular, for chairing a special session at the UN Security Council in February, focused entirely on Sudan.
She placed. She placed the importance of rights and women at the top of the agenda as Foreign Secretary. And in Sudan, women and children have been disproportionately impacted.
I've spoken to constituents with family links to Sudan, fearing for their loved ones, others who are horrified at the events and the international complacency. Sudan needs an immediate ceasefire and aid into the country. That's why I support the government's efforts to keep Sudan, the Sudan , conflict, high on the international agenda, and I commend our previous Foreign Secretary for all her efforts, and in particular, for chairing a special session at the UN Security Council in February, focused entirely on Sudan.
She placed. She placed the importance of rights and women at the top of the agenda as Foreign Secretary. And in Sudan, women and children have been disproportionately impacted.
15:02
15:02
15:02
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Sudan is the world's biggest humanitarian crisis and like her, I have constituents who are deeply concerned, including Sandra in Queen's Park, Jeremy's Cliff and Springbourne and Colleen in Musgrove Park. Some of the things I've heard from constituents is the concern about a report in the Guardian on the 7th of September, which talks about women and girls fleeing the brutal civil war to Egypt, where they thought they would find safety, but they've fallen prey to sexual abuse and exploitation.
Does she agree with me that women and girls are suffering in Sudan, but they're also suffering in the places where they should be finding safety?
Does she agree with me that women and girls are suffering in Sudan, but they're also suffering in the places where they should be finding safety?
15:03
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important point and just underlying the vulnerability that women and girls face across across the world. And indeed, a staggering 1 in 4 Sudanese people are at risk of sexual violence. And as I say, women and girls are disproportionately impacted. In the UN report into the siege of El Fasher, one woman described being raped in front of the bodies of my mother, my father and my slaughtered brother chair.
I cannot imagine the fear that Sudanese women feel every day. And so I'd like to ask the minister today to confirm that the continuation of the £20 million programme to support victims of rape will continue. Chair , in an unstable world with humanitarian suffering beyond comprehension, it's too often the case that we feel like we're being forced to consider which crisis we care about most, when the truth is humanity and compassion has no boundaries, it does not dilute based on proximity, ethnicity or religion.
There is no hierarchy for humanitarian suffering that we should be outraged about. Indeed, my constituents frequently express to me their deep frustration that the media and government don't shine a brighter light on what's going on in Sudan. But more than just talking about the appalling situation in Sudan, we need the UK government to take action. So I'd like to ask the Minister to confirm that the UK will continue its arms embargo and sanctions regime until there is a ceasefire in Sudan.
The sanctions, introduced in July against a further 11 individuals and organisations. This list reveals a glimmer of the web of dark money and corporate interests that are exploiting this conflict for their own greed. Commercial brokers, real estate managed companies, capital holding corporations, mining companies the list goes on. There is blood on all of their hands. Sanctioning individuals is not enough while the arms keeps flowing. The UN's independent international fact finding mission for Sudan has found reasonable grounds to believe there is a transnational network running through companies and intermediaries in the UAE.
Can I ask the minister what more the UK is doing? Can do bilaterally and through the UN Security Council to press the UAE specifically over these credible and mounting allegations, and whether the government will review UK arms licensing arrangements with the OIE in light of them. I appreciate the Minister can't go into detail on further sanctions the government might be considering, but can I ask her to provide us with reassurance that that work is underway? Can I thank the honourable member for securing this important debate again for the powerful speeches we've already heard from other members, and also to ask the government to continue to take action, more action to stop the genocide in Sudan, support a ceasefire and help the Sudanese people find their future.
Thank you.
I cannot imagine the fear that Sudanese women feel every day. And so I'd like to ask the minister today to confirm that the continuation of the £20 million programme to support victims of rape will continue. Chair , in an unstable world with humanitarian suffering beyond comprehension, it's too often the case that we feel like we're being forced to consider which crisis we care about most, when the truth is humanity and compassion has no boundaries, it does not dilute based on proximity, ethnicity or religion.
There is no hierarchy for humanitarian suffering that we should be outraged about. Indeed, my constituents frequently express to me their deep frustration that the media and government don't shine a brighter light on what's going on in Sudan. But more than just talking about the appalling situation in Sudan, we need the UK government to take action. So I'd like to ask the Minister to confirm that the UK will continue its arms embargo and sanctions regime until there is a ceasefire in Sudan.
The sanctions, introduced in July against a further 11 individuals and organisations. This list reveals a glimmer of the web of dark money and corporate interests that are exploiting this conflict for their own greed. Commercial brokers, real estate managed companies, capital holding corporations, mining companies the list goes on. There is blood on all of their hands. Sanctioning individuals is not enough while the arms keeps flowing. The UN's independent international fact finding mission for Sudan has found reasonable grounds to believe there is a transnational network running through companies and intermediaries in the UAE.
Can I ask the minister what more the UK is doing? Can do bilaterally and through the UN Security Council to press the UAE specifically over these credible and mounting allegations, and whether the government will review UK arms licensing arrangements with the OIE in light of them. I appreciate the Minister can't go into detail on further sanctions the government might be considering, but can I ask her to provide us with reassurance that that work is underway? Can I thank the honourable member for securing this important debate again for the powerful speeches we've already heard from other members, and also to ask the government to continue to take action, more action to stop the genocide in Sudan, support a ceasefire and help the Sudanese people find their future.
Thank you.
15:06
15:06
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
It's a pleasure to serve as you're chairing this meeting, and it's a very vital one. And I congratulate the honourable lady for achieving this. It is, in fact, a sad fact of life in Parliament that we have not debated this issue enough and enough on the floor of the House of Commons as well, because the death toll in this, you know, dwarfs anything else that is going on around and the amount of time we spend on some other issues, but not this.
And so I absolutely agree with the figures that she's she's produced today, the terrible death toll that something in the order of 400,000 now dead. But I suspect that's even an underestimate. And then that would certainly lead to over 1 million to 1 million and a half that have been wounded, injured as well, just in the direct conflicts. And then all the people that have been displaced that she laid the figures out for. And I absolutely agree with them, but I want to focus on following the money, because it seems to me that if we were to stop the money, we would stop this war.
And I want to focus on the role of the UAE in all of this, which I think is an abomination. And frankly, I think they're a disgraceful administration anyway. And I'll come to the reason why it's absolutely clear now that prominent human rights organisations and many media outlets doing investigations on RSS fighters using weapons that have been supplied by UAE, if not even manufactured, but certainly re-exported to them on a regular basis in vast numbers, including ammunition.
Then also the arrival of Colombian mercenaries recruited, no doubt, from an organisation that is very close to the leadership of UAE. September 2025 The Governor of Sudan estimated the number of Colombian mercenaries getting on for 500. However, higher estimates are between 1500 and 2000 and growing. First of all, that has come directly. We believe, as a result of what has been happening in the UAE. Now the global security services group, the GSSG is the organisation contracted to hire these people also involved in the supply of weapons.
And the GSG. G is owned by Emirati businessman Mohammed Hamdan Al-harbi, and he has business interests in security firms, jointly with Ahmed Mohammed Al-umari, the Secretary General of the UAE, UAE President's Court. So the links are really very clearly being established now to what's going on. The G, double S, G also continues to be closely tied to the government, and its web site states that it is the preferred security provider for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Presidential Affairs of the UAE.
And the evidence indicates that two military bases in Abu Dhabi were used as training facilities for the mercenaries. I mean, the list goes on. My question really to government is why in heaven's name are we not now sanctioning key operatives in the UAE? I am the chairman of the all party parliamentary group on Magnitsky Sanctions, and it is surely high time now why we do. If you look at the links back to Sheikh Mansour, who is actually, as you say, well documented ties with the leader of the CSF, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, and has also been described as his closest ally in the Emirates.
In March 2023, Premier League clubs apparently unanimously said that they would not allow individuals involved in human rights abuses. Yet Mansour is still sitting in charge of Manchester City and the question is why? And why is the government so determined not to pursue them? I suspect a lot of money in investments and ownership of football teams, but it should not be the case that that stops pursuing these people, because UAE would be very, very suspect in that.
But even if that wasn't enough, the UAE is involved in the most appalling abuse. The British citizen Ryan Cornelius, has had 18 years incarcerated. The UN has claimed this is a completely wrong UN judicial and therefore he should be released. The Abu Dhabi Bank has carried on with its pursuit of him, and he himself has not seen his family for close on now 19 years and that is a British citizen. How often have successive governments, when they visit the UAE ever named him or said anything to them? Very rarely.
All they do is raise the issue and move on as we pursue more money. So I think the answer to this today is that we now must know that for 18 years, Mohamed Ibrahim Al-shaybani, the chair of the Dubai Islamic Bank and head of the ruler Dubai's Court, as responsible for Iran's detention and very close to the leadership of UAE. It is time. It is time that we crack down on this organisation and showed it to be the pariah that it is behind all that is going on in Sudan, abuses in terms of British citizens and and who should be released even now.
And I think unless the government is prepared to step up and sanction key individuals and not allow them to own football teams and not allow them to invest in the United Kingdom and enjoy their shopping trips here, then we will not be the nation that I think we should be.
And so I absolutely agree with the figures that she's she's produced today, the terrible death toll that something in the order of 400,000 now dead. But I suspect that's even an underestimate. And then that would certainly lead to over 1 million to 1 million and a half that have been wounded, injured as well, just in the direct conflicts. And then all the people that have been displaced that she laid the figures out for. And I absolutely agree with them, but I want to focus on following the money, because it seems to me that if we were to stop the money, we would stop this war.
And I want to focus on the role of the UAE in all of this, which I think is an abomination. And frankly, I think they're a disgraceful administration anyway. And I'll come to the reason why it's absolutely clear now that prominent human rights organisations and many media outlets doing investigations on RSS fighters using weapons that have been supplied by UAE, if not even manufactured, but certainly re-exported to them on a regular basis in vast numbers, including ammunition.
Then also the arrival of Colombian mercenaries recruited, no doubt, from an organisation that is very close to the leadership of UAE. September 2025 The Governor of Sudan estimated the number of Colombian mercenaries getting on for 500. However, higher estimates are between 1500 and 2000 and growing. First of all, that has come directly. We believe, as a result of what has been happening in the UAE. Now the global security services group, the GSSG is the organisation contracted to hire these people also involved in the supply of weapons.
And the GSG. G is owned by Emirati businessman Mohammed Hamdan Al-harbi, and he has business interests in security firms, jointly with Ahmed Mohammed Al-umari, the Secretary General of the UAE, UAE President's Court. So the links are really very clearly being established now to what's going on. The G, double S, G also continues to be closely tied to the government, and its web site states that it is the preferred security provider for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Presidential Affairs of the UAE.
And the evidence indicates that two military bases in Abu Dhabi were used as training facilities for the mercenaries. I mean, the list goes on. My question really to government is why in heaven's name are we not now sanctioning key operatives in the UAE? I am the chairman of the all party parliamentary group on Magnitsky Sanctions, and it is surely high time now why we do. If you look at the links back to Sheikh Mansour, who is actually, as you say, well documented ties with the leader of the CSF, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, and has also been described as his closest ally in the Emirates.
In March 2023, Premier League clubs apparently unanimously said that they would not allow individuals involved in human rights abuses. Yet Mansour is still sitting in charge of Manchester City and the question is why? And why is the government so determined not to pursue them? I suspect a lot of money in investments and ownership of football teams, but it should not be the case that that stops pursuing these people, because UAE would be very, very suspect in that.
But even if that wasn't enough, the UAE is involved in the most appalling abuse. The British citizen Ryan Cornelius, has had 18 years incarcerated. The UN has claimed this is a completely wrong UN judicial and therefore he should be released. The Abu Dhabi Bank has carried on with its pursuit of him, and he himself has not seen his family for close on now 19 years and that is a British citizen. How often have successive governments, when they visit the UAE ever named him or said anything to them? Very rarely.
All they do is raise the issue and move on as we pursue more money. So I think the answer to this today is that we now must know that for 18 years, Mohamed Ibrahim Al-shaybani, the chair of the Dubai Islamic Bank and head of the ruler Dubai's Court, as responsible for Iran's detention and very close to the leadership of UAE. It is time. It is time that we crack down on this organisation and showed it to be the pariah that it is behind all that is going on in Sudan, abuses in terms of British citizens and and who should be released even now.
And I think unless the government is prepared to step up and sanction key individuals and not allow them to own football teams and not allow them to invest in the United Kingdom and enjoy their shopping trips here, then we will not be the nation that I think we should be.
15:11
15:11
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you. Pleasure to see you in the chair. And I do congratulate my hon. Friend for Gillingham and Rainham for securing such an important debate at this time as well. And as we think about the displacement and destitution, the hunger, the rape, the violence in everyday stories of this forgotten war in Sudan, which is destroying a nation, ripping itself apart and fuelling the greatest humanitarian disaster on our planet. We have got to step up our focus and our action in this place.
And whilst I really do welcome all the honourable members here today, it is still insufficient. The amount of attention that this House places on this disaster. And we think about 33.7 million of the Sudanese population in need of humanitarian assistance, with 13 million displaced, 19.5 million at levels of food insecurity which need urgent attention, and 8 million children not in the safety of school every day getting their education, which will fuel challenges for the future , too.
It is such an urgency that we find those paths in order to move beyond these atrocities, and yet it feels like actors cannot see beyond the desire to gain ground, destroy lives and property, and kill any hope. And as we know, the Sudan war is a proxy for external actors. And that's what demands our urgent attention. We must use all the leverage we have to stop fuelling this conflict, not least the behaviours of countries like the UAE and at times Egypt too.
When we're seeing this conflict moving over from traditional warfare into now this litany of drones which are being used, the mercenaries which we've just heard about being brought from Colombia, and, of course, the exchange of money to. And of course, we know that Russia has its own interests in weapons and in gold, and we must look at the minimal interest over Sudan and the developments which are happening in Port Sudan at this time. And therefore, in fighting this proxy war, we need to ensure there is proper global accountability, which seems so lacking from our systems today.
So in our tinderbox of geopolitical fragility, where domestic politics sucks our attention, we need to find the capacity within government to provide the leadership which is necessary and to find the resolutions which are so urgent and of course, match that with our commitments and a scale of aid and of course, the political capital we can bring. In recent years , we have witnessed new approaches as well. And I look to what happened and the assault on El Fasher in particular, the way that the we saw the the the systemic raping of women, the burning of people and places, and the escalation in this next chapter of this civil war which has raged since April 2023, last year in London and this year in Berlin and other UK, UK and other actors came to bring people together to break the deadlocks.
And yet the fruit has been so small from those efforts. And therefore I think we need to look wider at the infrastructure. We've got to address conflict. And I do welcome the steps the former foreign secretary made to address the issue of women in conflict, and particularly put the investment in for those who experience sexual harm as a result of this conflict. And I would really like to hear from the minister what progress has been made in that area, to know how that money has been spent and the impact that it has had to date.
But as we're seeing increasing brutalization in war, we've got to find that even more focus on how we use the international law to hold actors, to account, to pace that because it takes forever and a day to bring people to account, but also to have a different vision for how we build that diplomacy, where there can be focus on the post-conflict opportunity of trade, of reciprocity and cooperation and security and stability, where we can use pragmatism and protection to build rules and rights and take the seeds of both London and the shoots of Berlin to grow into a settlement which works for the people on the ground in Sudan.
And therefore, I ask the minister if she would also look at the role that civil society has to play. We know in up to the point of 2023, civil society played a major role in holding the stability in Sudan, and therefore, being able to work with local leaders is really crucial in raising their opportunity to build the bridges, which are necessary to de-escalate the risk that we see. And I want to know how we're not only investing, but inspiring those community organisations and actors to use their accountability, their creative diplomacy, and ultimately the necessary support that they need to build for the future.
And whilst I really do welcome all the honourable members here today, it is still insufficient. The amount of attention that this House places on this disaster. And we think about 33.7 million of the Sudanese population in need of humanitarian assistance, with 13 million displaced, 19.5 million at levels of food insecurity which need urgent attention, and 8 million children not in the safety of school every day getting their education, which will fuel challenges for the future , too.
It is such an urgency that we find those paths in order to move beyond these atrocities, and yet it feels like actors cannot see beyond the desire to gain ground, destroy lives and property, and kill any hope. And as we know, the Sudan war is a proxy for external actors. And that's what demands our urgent attention. We must use all the leverage we have to stop fuelling this conflict, not least the behaviours of countries like the UAE and at times Egypt too.
When we're seeing this conflict moving over from traditional warfare into now this litany of drones which are being used, the mercenaries which we've just heard about being brought from Colombia, and, of course, the exchange of money to. And of course, we know that Russia has its own interests in weapons and in gold, and we must look at the minimal interest over Sudan and the developments which are happening in Port Sudan at this time. And therefore, in fighting this proxy war, we need to ensure there is proper global accountability, which seems so lacking from our systems today.
So in our tinderbox of geopolitical fragility, where domestic politics sucks our attention, we need to find the capacity within government to provide the leadership which is necessary and to find the resolutions which are so urgent and of course, match that with our commitments and a scale of aid and of course, the political capital we can bring. In recent years , we have witnessed new approaches as well. And I look to what happened and the assault on El Fasher in particular, the way that the we saw the the the systemic raping of women, the burning of people and places, and the escalation in this next chapter of this civil war which has raged since April 2023, last year in London and this year in Berlin and other UK, UK and other actors came to bring people together to break the deadlocks.
And yet the fruit has been so small from those efforts. And therefore I think we need to look wider at the infrastructure. We've got to address conflict. And I do welcome the steps the former foreign secretary made to address the issue of women in conflict, and particularly put the investment in for those who experience sexual harm as a result of this conflict. And I would really like to hear from the minister what progress has been made in that area, to know how that money has been spent and the impact that it has had to date.
But as we're seeing increasing brutalization in war, we've got to find that even more focus on how we use the international law to hold actors, to account, to pace that because it takes forever and a day to bring people to account, but also to have a different vision for how we build that diplomacy, where there can be focus on the post-conflict opportunity of trade, of reciprocity and cooperation and security and stability, where we can use pragmatism and protection to build rules and rights and take the seeds of both London and the shoots of Berlin to grow into a settlement which works for the people on the ground in Sudan.
And therefore, I ask the minister if she would also look at the role that civil society has to play. We know in up to the point of 2023, civil society played a major role in holding the stability in Sudan, and therefore, being able to work with local leaders is really crucial in raising their opportunity to build the bridges, which are necessary to de-escalate the risk that we see. And I want to know how we're not only investing, but inspiring those community organisations and actors to use their accountability, their creative diplomacy, and ultimately the necessary support that they need to build for the future.
15:16
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Good afternoon. Doctor Alan Khan, it's a pleasure to serve under you today. And my thanks to my hon. Friend from Gillingham and Rainham for securing this debate. Sudan now faces the world's worst humanitarian crisis, largest hunger crisis and biggest internal displacement crisis. And history has taught us that war always drains resources into armed conflict. Instead of directing them towards manufacturing, development and the raising of people's living standards, this war is a counter-revolutionary conflict between two military factions that has left Sudan's infrastructure largely destroyed.
Sudan's agriculture industry and domestic and foreign trade all being severely disrupted. With approximately 13 million people displaced and 19.5 million people facing acute food insecurity, with hundreds of thousands living in famine conditions. As well as this war, there has been years of failed politics, a lack of development, a weakening of production and widespread corruption. This has all led to the collapse of state institutions, mass unemployment and intense poverty.
According to the latest estimates of the Central Bureau of Statistics, 82.8% of the population now live below the poverty line. The war has created an economy where military interests, commercial networks and smuggling all converge, on which both sides bear responsibility. Once a national resource, both sides are using gold for financing. Its revenues are used to purchase weapons, ammunition, drones and other military supplies. Sudan's gold production reached 70.15 tonnes in 2025, while officially recorded exports amounted to only approximately 14 tonnes.
56 tonnes of gold did not enter official channels through the Bank of Sudan. Doctor Allin-khan this war is being used to pass highly questionable agreements and projects with international capital and countries with appalling human rights records, with far reaching economic investment and strategic consequences. For example, the Sudanese Saudi Coordination Council, who operate away from the gaze of public scrutiny and who grant long term economic investment and strategic concessions involving land, agriculture, ports and other natural resources.
And only last year, the Sudanese foreign minister confirmed that a final understanding had been reached that would see a Russian naval base on the Red sea , with up to 300 Russian personnel and four warships. Collectively, the international community must try to bring this war to an end and guarantee humanitarian access and press all parties for safe, unhindered aid delivery to every part of Sudan through all available channels and back efforts to prevent famine.
The arms pipeline should be cut off, with the UK actively monitoring and using every available measure to end foreign military support to the warring factions, including the UAE's support to the CSF and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1556. There must be accountability, not impunity. The UK should support independent monitoring, documentation and prosecution of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law by all perpetrators, and there should be a democratic, Sudanese led civilian civilian transition, with the UK backing a genuinely inclusive process that excludes the warring parties and the former regime.
With no return to power sharing with the military and the introduction of a single national army under civilian oversight. Doctor Allin-khan . The decisive factor here is internal. The resistance committees, the trade unions and the displaced people's committees should help shape Sudan's future with the UK and wider international community supporting democratic forces on the ground and back, bottom up participation and leadership that leads to sovereignty and the reconstruction of a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Sudan.
Sudan's agriculture industry and domestic and foreign trade all being severely disrupted. With approximately 13 million people displaced and 19.5 million people facing acute food insecurity, with hundreds of thousands living in famine conditions. As well as this war, there has been years of failed politics, a lack of development, a weakening of production and widespread corruption. This has all led to the collapse of state institutions, mass unemployment and intense poverty.
According to the latest estimates of the Central Bureau of Statistics, 82.8% of the population now live below the poverty line. The war has created an economy where military interests, commercial networks and smuggling all converge, on which both sides bear responsibility. Once a national resource, both sides are using gold for financing. Its revenues are used to purchase weapons, ammunition, drones and other military supplies. Sudan's gold production reached 70.15 tonnes in 2025, while officially recorded exports amounted to only approximately 14 tonnes.
56 tonnes of gold did not enter official channels through the Bank of Sudan. Doctor Allin-khan this war is being used to pass highly questionable agreements and projects with international capital and countries with appalling human rights records, with far reaching economic investment and strategic consequences. For example, the Sudanese Saudi Coordination Council, who operate away from the gaze of public scrutiny and who grant long term economic investment and strategic concessions involving land, agriculture, ports and other natural resources.
And only last year, the Sudanese foreign minister confirmed that a final understanding had been reached that would see a Russian naval base on the Red sea , with up to 300 Russian personnel and four warships. Collectively, the international community must try to bring this war to an end and guarantee humanitarian access and press all parties for safe, unhindered aid delivery to every part of Sudan through all available channels and back efforts to prevent famine.
The arms pipeline should be cut off, with the UK actively monitoring and using every available measure to end foreign military support to the warring factions, including the UAE's support to the CSF and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1556. There must be accountability, not impunity. The UK should support independent monitoring, documentation and prosecution of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law by all perpetrators, and there should be a democratic, Sudanese led civilian civilian transition, with the UK backing a genuinely inclusive process that excludes the warring parties and the former regime.
With no return to power sharing with the military and the introduction of a single national army under civilian oversight. Doctor Allin-khan . The decisive factor here is internal. The resistance committees, the trade unions and the displaced people's committees should help shape Sudan's future with the UK and wider international community supporting democratic forces on the ground and back, bottom up participation and leadership that leads to sovereignty and the reconstruction of a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Sudan.
15:21
15:22
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you, Madam Chair, and a pleasure to serve under your Chairship. And thank you to the honourable member for Gillingham and Rainham for raising this subject. We should be talking about so much more, and I welcome the Minister to her place. Can I declare my interest as the Vice Chair of the Appg on Sudan and South Sudan? And I will also refer to a trip undertaken with action against hunger to the Chad Sudan border to witness the impact of the conflict.
I can rehearse the lines I have said over and over again during my time in this House, to a range of frontbench ministers, that the world has failed Sudan, and that the UK must do so much more to bring about an end to this conflict and an end to the largest humanitarian humanitarian crisis in our world today. In June, I wrote to the leader with the leader of my party, the member for Kingston and Surbiton, to the former prime minister, urging him to use his last hours in the office to act to end the escalating crisis in El Obeid at real risk of similar levels of violence against civilians as the El Fasher massacre in 2025.
I didn't receive a response. Over the summer, El Obeid has seen thousands of people arriving in search of shelter. Welcome statements have been made by foreign ministers, including here in the UK, to call for de-escalation and for the warring parties to uphold international humanitarian law. But the the situation continues to worsen and it is emblematic of the situation in Sudan today. In May, I visited Chad with colleagues to the border.
We found a humanitarian response operating under extraordinary pressure. The town of Adré, which once had a population of 40,000, now hosts an estimated 240,000 people. Chad now hosts more than 1.5 million refugees, the majority of them from Sudan. Chad is one of the poorest countries in the world and is sharing scarce water, land and services with a vast refugee population. But as the humanitarian actors we met on our trip told us continually, the needs far outweigh the resources they have to respond.
In November, I will give way to the honourable.
I can rehearse the lines I have said over and over again during my time in this House, to a range of frontbench ministers, that the world has failed Sudan, and that the UK must do so much more to bring about an end to this conflict and an end to the largest humanitarian humanitarian crisis in our world today. In June, I wrote to the leader with the leader of my party, the member for Kingston and Surbiton, to the former prime minister, urging him to use his last hours in the office to act to end the escalating crisis in El Obeid at real risk of similar levels of violence against civilians as the El Fasher massacre in 2025.
I didn't receive a response. Over the summer, El Obeid has seen thousands of people arriving in search of shelter. Welcome statements have been made by foreign ministers, including here in the UK, to call for de-escalation and for the warring parties to uphold international humanitarian law. But the the situation continues to worsen and it is emblematic of the situation in Sudan today. In May, I visited Chad with colleagues to the border.
We found a humanitarian response operating under extraordinary pressure. The town of Adré, which once had a population of 40,000, now hosts an estimated 240,000 people. Chad now hosts more than 1.5 million refugees, the majority of them from Sudan. Chad is one of the poorest countries in the world and is sharing scarce water, land and services with a vast refugee population. But as the humanitarian actors we met on our trip told us continually, the needs far outweigh the resources they have to respond.
In November, I will give way to the honourable.
15:24
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Lady for giving way. And I attended that trip, and I also declare an interest in exactly the way that she expressed it. She talks about the hard work of humanitarian organisations, which she agree with me that of course, those who had received that support were very grateful for it. They kept saying that to us, but that they were really concerned about what would happen in the future, and they had already seen a reduction in that support.
Thank you.
Thank you.
15:24
15:24
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Honourable member for her intervention. She's absolutely right. The overall funding to Chad for the humanitarian response had fallen to 27%. This meant that in the refugee camps we visited, food was being rationed, and it meant that it may have been every other week or every other month. They were missing food parcels, and they were extremely worried these refugees about what was happening in the future. And we Liberal Democrats welcomed the government's announcement of the £146 million worth in new funds of frontline aid workers to support Sudan, but the government's aid cuts have diminished our ability to respond to humanitarian crisis and our international commitments to be honoured.
And I remind the minister that the 0.7% aid budget was a commitment that this House legislated for, and we continue to wait for a timetable to return to the 0.7%. Meanwhile, the atrocities continue. Recently, I met with the independent UN Fact Finding Mission for Sudan. Their latest report, just released, makes tough reading, concluding that external support is sustaining and expanding military capabilities of the SAF and CSF, particularly in the drone capability, and point to transnational networks supplying the CSF with weapons, logistics, training and foreign personnel, and that the SAF are using foreign supplied drones, which harm civilians.
I will give way.
And I remind the minister that the 0.7% aid budget was a commitment that this House legislated for, and we continue to wait for a timetable to return to the 0.7%. Meanwhile, the atrocities continue. Recently, I met with the independent UN Fact Finding Mission for Sudan. Their latest report, just released, makes tough reading, concluding that external support is sustaining and expanding military capabilities of the SAF and CSF, particularly in the drone capability, and point to transnational networks supplying the CSF with weapons, logistics, training and foreign personnel, and that the SAF are using foreign supplied drones, which harm civilians.
I will give way.
15:25
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
I thank already for those comments, and there's been some reference made by the last backbencher, and that's the influence of Russian and the Wagner Group in particular, who seem to be in the background training, exploiting the the, the reserves and the gold and the minerals that there are in Sudan at the same time also also involved in some atrocities against women, against children, and against the other people in Sudan. The honourable lady agree that when it comes to looking for culprits, Russia are at the top of the list as well.
15:26
15:26
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
honourable member for his intervention. Absolutely. China and Russia and so many other countries are involved in this crisis, and I welcome yesterday's statement by the UK on behalf of the coalition for Atrocity Prevention and Justice for Jordan, the call for a stop to the continued illegal flow of weapons. But when will the UK call out the countries doing it? I have pressed and pressed successive ministers and successive foreign secretaries, and they continually .
To refuse to call out, particularly the UAE, for its reported, widely reported bloody role in this conflict. When will they do so, and when will they take consequential action for their hand in it? Will arms licences to the named countries be reviewed and halted in light of these reports? With the current arms embargo on the Darfur region up for renewal at the end of this week, will the UK push for Sudan wide arms embargo, something that now even the USA are calling for? Will the government use the UK's Penholder on Sudan, on the UN Security Council to advance efforts to secure the ceasefire? The current roadmap is unrealistic.
How will the government propose a realistic de-escalation? And what about the sanctions on those at the heart of this conflict? Will the government widen the scope of its sanctions regime to ensure those driving the conflict will face further restrictions? And chair, when in Chad. I met women so traumatised by what they had experienced that their eyes were dead. Some could not speak. Those that did told us harrowing tales of rape and murder on their way to Chad, across Sudan.
One lady had witnessed nine male members of her family murdered. One lady had just arrived at the border into the care of the UN with two children, five and seven. She had taken five months to get there by herself from El Fasher. Those roads are dangerous. So how will the government work to secure the safety of civilians? And what about accountability? In the absence of reprisals, belligerence and their state backers are acting with impunity.
Belligerents are using rape, starvation as a weapon of war, arbitrary detention, torture, and retaliating against civilian populations. I NGOs are being silenced with the threat of removing their access if they speak out. And UNHCR doesn't even have the money to spend time with those victims and diagnose what has occurred with the victims of unbelievable violence. You cannot seek accountability if you cannot fund the capacity to establish it. So will the government review its financial commitment to Sudan and encourage other nations also to fill that void? So will the government commit to seeking to extend the mandate of the fact finding mission? What conversations are being had on a peacekeeping force in Sudan, perhaps with the African Union, if only to state that the world is waking up to this conflict and that the belligerents are no longer able to act with impunity, thumbing their noses at international humanitarian law and the values of humanity itself.
The UK has a unique role to play in this conflict, and I have just hotfooted it from the Foreign Secretary's statement on Palestine, which I welcome, and I applaud his assertion that he says it is also the case that we fail to stand up for the values that this country has long held and fought for. We lose credibility and influence in the world. He talks about a Britain that upholds its values at home and around the world, and a Britain that fights against oppression and suffering wherever it occurs, and a Britain that stands up for what is right.
Does that apply to Sudan as well? Can the government ensure that it uses every lever at its disposal to up the urgency, convince the international community to act, to stop the bloodshed? And for every child trapped in this terrible conflict, terrified right now, for every mother trying to protect her son, for every civilian caught up in the violence, for the humanitarian worker facing unbelievable risks and for humanity's sake, do more.
To refuse to call out, particularly the UAE, for its reported, widely reported bloody role in this conflict. When will they do so, and when will they take consequential action for their hand in it? Will arms licences to the named countries be reviewed and halted in light of these reports? With the current arms embargo on the Darfur region up for renewal at the end of this week, will the UK push for Sudan wide arms embargo, something that now even the USA are calling for? Will the government use the UK's Penholder on Sudan, on the UN Security Council to advance efforts to secure the ceasefire? The current roadmap is unrealistic.
How will the government propose a realistic de-escalation? And what about the sanctions on those at the heart of this conflict? Will the government widen the scope of its sanctions regime to ensure those driving the conflict will face further restrictions? And chair, when in Chad. I met women so traumatised by what they had experienced that their eyes were dead. Some could not speak. Those that did told us harrowing tales of rape and murder on their way to Chad, across Sudan.
One lady had witnessed nine male members of her family murdered. One lady had just arrived at the border into the care of the UN with two children, five and seven. She had taken five months to get there by herself from El Fasher. Those roads are dangerous. So how will the government work to secure the safety of civilians? And what about accountability? In the absence of reprisals, belligerence and their state backers are acting with impunity.
Belligerents are using rape, starvation as a weapon of war, arbitrary detention, torture, and retaliating against civilian populations. I NGOs are being silenced with the threat of removing their access if they speak out. And UNHCR doesn't even have the money to spend time with those victims and diagnose what has occurred with the victims of unbelievable violence. You cannot seek accountability if you cannot fund the capacity to establish it. So will the government review its financial commitment to Sudan and encourage other nations also to fill that void? So will the government commit to seeking to extend the mandate of the fact finding mission? What conversations are being had on a peacekeeping force in Sudan, perhaps with the African Union, if only to state that the world is waking up to this conflict and that the belligerents are no longer able to act with impunity, thumbing their noses at international humanitarian law and the values of humanity itself.
The UK has a unique role to play in this conflict, and I have just hotfooted it from the Foreign Secretary's statement on Palestine, which I welcome, and I applaud his assertion that he says it is also the case that we fail to stand up for the values that this country has long held and fought for. We lose credibility and influence in the world. He talks about a Britain that upholds its values at home and around the world, and a Britain that fights against oppression and suffering wherever it occurs, and a Britain that stands up for what is right.
Does that apply to Sudan as well? Can the government ensure that it uses every lever at its disposal to up the urgency, convince the international community to act, to stop the bloodshed? And for every child trapped in this terrible conflict, terrified right now, for every mother trying to protect her son, for every civilian caught up in the violence, for the humanitarian worker facing unbelievable risks and for humanity's sake, do more.
15:30
15:30
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you, Miss Allin-khan, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. Let me start by congratulating the honourable member for Gillingham and Rainham on securing this important debate today, and I am grateful to members from across the House for the contributions that they have made today, not least my right hon. Friend the member for Chingford and Wood Green, who really reinforced the importance of keeping this topic on the agenda, keeping it a bit being discussed in this place, and the importance of sanctions.
And also my right hon. Friend the member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, who as ever, brings huge knowledge and expertise to this debate, particularly on nutrition, which he shared with us today. And no debate is complete without the honourable member, the gentleman for for Strangford. I'd also like to welcome the new minister to her place. I think this is the first time we have met across the despatch box in in Westminster Hall.
So turning to the conflict in Sudan, this conflict may not always receive the attention in this country that other international crises do, as we've set out today. But the scale of human suffering is truly appalling. For more than three years, fighting between the Sudanese armed forces and the Rapid support forces has devastated communities across the country. At least 150 000 people are estimated to have been killed. Around 14 million people have been displaced, including some 9 million within Sudan itself, and more than half of the population is now acutely
And also my right hon. Friend the member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, who as ever, brings huge knowledge and expertise to this debate, particularly on nutrition, which he shared with us today. And no debate is complete without the honourable member, the gentleman for for Strangford. I'd also like to welcome the new minister to her place. I think this is the first time we have met across the despatch box in in Westminster Hall.
So turning to the conflict in Sudan, this conflict may not always receive the attention in this country that other international crises do, as we've set out today. But the scale of human suffering is truly appalling. For more than three years, fighting between the Sudanese armed forces and the Rapid support forces has devastated communities across the country. At least 150 000 people are estimated to have been killed. Around 14 million people have been displaced, including some 9 million within Sudan itself, and more than half of the population is now acutely
15:32
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And more than half of the population is now acutely food insecure. Famine has been confirmed in multiple areas. Now, behind each of the of those statistics, there are individuals and there are families whose lives have been torn apart. We have seen horrifying reports of attacks against civilians, widespread sexual violence, the destruction of essential infrastructure and deliberate obstruction of humanitarian assistance. Those responsible for atrocities must ultimately be held to account.
And I particularly want to use today to recognise the extraordinary work of humanitarian organisations and Sudanese civil society, often operating in extremely dangerous circumstances, to deliver assistance to those who desperately need it. The recent attack on a World Food Programme, as was highlighted by highlighted earlier today to the humanitarian convoy, was another disturbing reminder of the risks faced by those simply trying to deliver life saving assistance. There can be no justification for attacks on humanitarian workers or the deliberate obstruction of aid.
The government was therefore right to condemn that attack, but condemnation must be accompanied by consequences. So can the minister tell us what assessment the government has made of responsibility for attacks on humanitarian operations, and what action they are prepared to take against those responsible? And the regional consequences of this conflict also demand our attention. As we've heard this afternoon, 4.5 million Sudanese people have fled to neighbouring countries. Chad and Egypt are carrying a particularly significant burden, with Egypt alone hosting around 1.5 million Sudanese refugees without adequate protection, basic services and opportunities in neighbouring countries.
Vulnerable people face exploitation and are increasingly driven towards dangerous onward journeys. The number of Sudanese refugees arriving in Europe rose sharply between 2024 and 2025, and Sudanese nationals accounted for 11% of small boat arrivals to the UK last year. So this is therefore not just a humanitarian crisis. Continued instability in Sudan has serious consequences for regional stability and ultimately for our own national security. We cannot afford to see a vast ungoverned space emerge between the Sahel and the Red sea, in which hostile states, terrorist organizations and criminal networks are able to expand their influence.
There are already deeply concerning reports of external actors fuelling this war through weapons financing and political support. Russia has sought influence with both sides while pursuing its own strategic interests, including access to Port Sudan and the Red sea. There are also long standing and serious allegations about the supply of weapons to the RSS through regional networks. The government must therefore be clear that those who finance arm and prolong this conflict cannot expect to do so without consequences.
So we welcome the sanctions announced in July against individuals and entities linked to illicit gold networks and the financing and procurement structures supporting both the ISF and the SAF. But ministers need to demonstrate that those measures are disrupting the networks sustaining this war rather than simply identifying them. The previous conservative government began sanctions against SAF and RSS linked individuals and entities. We secured UN Security Council Resolution two 736, demanding that the ISF halt its siege of Al-fashir and created the position of Special Envoy to the Horn of Africa and the Red sea.
We repeatedly raised concerns about the role of illicit Sudanese gold and reports of external arms supplies. So I'd like to ask the minister today what further sanctions are now being considered against those funding or arming the warring parties? What steps are being taken with international partners to disrupt the illicit gold networks that continue to finance the conflict? And what conversations are ministers having with regional partners about allegations that weapons continue to reach the parties through neighbouring states? Because ultimately, sanctions and humanitarian assistance can address some of the consequences of the war.
But they cannot substitute for the political settlement that Sudan so desperately needs. There is no military solution to this conflict. The UK has an important responsibility as the UN Security Council penholder on Sudan. We need to use that position assertively. We welcomed the Berlin principles agreed earlier this year, including the commitment to an immediate humanitarian truce, a sustained sustained ceasefire and ultimately to a civilian led political transition. But principles on paper must now translate into progress on the ground.
The government have spoken about their efforts with international partners to broker a humanitarian truce, and I hope the minister will update the House on precisely where those discussions now stand. And what are the what are the principal obstacles to securing that truth? What diplomatic engagement is taking place with those external external factors who possess influence over the parties? And what is the government's assessment of the prospects for moving from a humanitarian truce towards a permanent ceasefire and a credible, civilian led political process? The voices of Sudanese civilians themselves must be central to that process, including the women who have suffered so disproportionately during this conflict.
The Berlin principles rightly recognise the importance of their meaningful participation. So accountability must also remain at the heart of our approach. The evidence of atrocities committed during this conflict is horrifying, including widespread sexual violence. And so the government should set out what practical assistance Britain is providing for the collection and preservation of evidence, and how we are supporting the international mechanisms necessary to turn that evidence into prosecutions.
And I hope the Minister will address specifically what support is being provided to women and girls who have survived sexual violence, including through Sudanese led organisations operating on the ground. Miss Allin-khan Britain has a long history of engagement in Sudan and we retain diplomatic influence that should be used. The government will have the support of the opposition where they take effective action towards these objectives. But more than three years of war, after more than three years of war, Sudan needs more than statements of concern.
It needs sustained diplomatic leadership. Consequences for those prolonging the conflict, accountability for those responsible for atrocities, and a credible pathway towards peace. And I look forward to listening to the minister this afternoon and to see listening to how she she can demonstrate just how the UK intends to deliver to to deliver exactly on that. Thank you.
And I particularly want to use today to recognise the extraordinary work of humanitarian organisations and Sudanese civil society, often operating in extremely dangerous circumstances, to deliver assistance to those who desperately need it. The recent attack on a World Food Programme, as was highlighted by highlighted earlier today to the humanitarian convoy, was another disturbing reminder of the risks faced by those simply trying to deliver life saving assistance. There can be no justification for attacks on humanitarian workers or the deliberate obstruction of aid.
The government was therefore right to condemn that attack, but condemnation must be accompanied by consequences. So can the minister tell us what assessment the government has made of responsibility for attacks on humanitarian operations, and what action they are prepared to take against those responsible? And the regional consequences of this conflict also demand our attention. As we've heard this afternoon, 4.5 million Sudanese people have fled to neighbouring countries. Chad and Egypt are carrying a particularly significant burden, with Egypt alone hosting around 1.5 million Sudanese refugees without adequate protection, basic services and opportunities in neighbouring countries.
Vulnerable people face exploitation and are increasingly driven towards dangerous onward journeys. The number of Sudanese refugees arriving in Europe rose sharply between 2024 and 2025, and Sudanese nationals accounted for 11% of small boat arrivals to the UK last year. So this is therefore not just a humanitarian crisis. Continued instability in Sudan has serious consequences for regional stability and ultimately for our own national security. We cannot afford to see a vast ungoverned space emerge between the Sahel and the Red sea, in which hostile states, terrorist organizations and criminal networks are able to expand their influence.
There are already deeply concerning reports of external actors fuelling this war through weapons financing and political support. Russia has sought influence with both sides while pursuing its own strategic interests, including access to Port Sudan and the Red sea. There are also long standing and serious allegations about the supply of weapons to the RSS through regional networks. The government must therefore be clear that those who finance arm and prolong this conflict cannot expect to do so without consequences.
So we welcome the sanctions announced in July against individuals and entities linked to illicit gold networks and the financing and procurement structures supporting both the ISF and the SAF. But ministers need to demonstrate that those measures are disrupting the networks sustaining this war rather than simply identifying them. The previous conservative government began sanctions against SAF and RSS linked individuals and entities. We secured UN Security Council Resolution two 736, demanding that the ISF halt its siege of Al-fashir and created the position of Special Envoy to the Horn of Africa and the Red sea.
We repeatedly raised concerns about the role of illicit Sudanese gold and reports of external arms supplies. So I'd like to ask the minister today what further sanctions are now being considered against those funding or arming the warring parties? What steps are being taken with international partners to disrupt the illicit gold networks that continue to finance the conflict? And what conversations are ministers having with regional partners about allegations that weapons continue to reach the parties through neighbouring states? Because ultimately, sanctions and humanitarian assistance can address some of the consequences of the war.
But they cannot substitute for the political settlement that Sudan so desperately needs. There is no military solution to this conflict. The UK has an important responsibility as the UN Security Council penholder on Sudan. We need to use that position assertively. We welcomed the Berlin principles agreed earlier this year, including the commitment to an immediate humanitarian truce, a sustained sustained ceasefire and ultimately to a civilian led political transition. But principles on paper must now translate into progress on the ground.
The government have spoken about their efforts with international partners to broker a humanitarian truce, and I hope the minister will update the House on precisely where those discussions now stand. And what are the what are the principal obstacles to securing that truth? What diplomatic engagement is taking place with those external external factors who possess influence over the parties? And what is the government's assessment of the prospects for moving from a humanitarian truce towards a permanent ceasefire and a credible, civilian led political process? The voices of Sudanese civilians themselves must be central to that process, including the women who have suffered so disproportionately during this conflict.
The Berlin principles rightly recognise the importance of their meaningful participation. So accountability must also remain at the heart of our approach. The evidence of atrocities committed during this conflict is horrifying, including widespread sexual violence. And so the government should set out what practical assistance Britain is providing for the collection and preservation of evidence, and how we are supporting the international mechanisms necessary to turn that evidence into prosecutions.
And I hope the Minister will address specifically what support is being provided to women and girls who have survived sexual violence, including through Sudanese led organisations operating on the ground. Miss Allin-khan Britain has a long history of engagement in Sudan and we retain diplomatic influence that should be used. The government will have the support of the opposition where they take effective action towards these objectives. But more than three years of war, after more than three years of war, Sudan needs more than statements of concern.
It needs sustained diplomatic leadership. Consequences for those prolonging the conflict, accountability for those responsible for atrocities, and a credible pathway towards peace. And I look forward to listening to the minister this afternoon and to see listening to how she she can demonstrate just how the UK intends to deliver to to deliver exactly on that. Thank you.
15:40
15:40
15:40
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
it's a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. I want to thank the honourable member for Gillingham and Rainham for securing this important debate and for her recent visit to Egypt alongside the my hon. Friend from Glasgow South, as they heard there, the conflict in Sudan is one of the most devastating and I would argue, defining conflicts of the 21st century. But for millions of people living through it, the word crisis just doesn't do it justice.
And that is why I am grateful to the honourable member and others in this room today for continuing to shine a light on this conflict and. Can you please pass on our very sincere gratitude to all the constituents who have been in touch with you about this? It is incredibly inspiring to see their solidarity with people that they may never meet. And I want to pay tribute to my predecessors, the right hon. Friend the member for Oxford East and Baroness Chapman of Darlington and the former Foreign Secretary, the member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley for their tireless efforts to strengthen the world's response.
My message today is simple the UK stands with the people of Sudan. This government stands with them and the Foreign Secretary and I stand with them too. We have heard powerfully from all the speakers today about the current situation, not least from the Shadow Minister just now. So I will not rehearse all the statistics you've heard, but I would like to add two of my own. Sudan is now the deadliest place on earth to be a health worker.
It is the second deadliest place on earth to be an aid worker, and there can be no justification in any circumstances for attacks on those who simply serve, to save, simply seek to serve humanity. So when faced with suffering on this scale, our compassion is not enough and our outrage is not enough. I know you want to hear about our actions, so let me go through the points that have been raised in turn. This year, the UK has committed £146 million in support for Sudan to reach over 1.8 million people.
My hon. Friend for barking asked for this confirmation. I am pleased to give it today that as part of that, we have launched a £20 million programme to support survivors of sexual and gender based violence with medical and psychological care, and to ensure that those closest to the crisis can deliver aid to the hardest to reach areas. We have more than doubled our support to local Sudanese responders, including to crucial emergency response rooms.
I am proud of what we are doing on Aid, but as my hon. Friend from Gillingham and Rainham has pointed out, aid alone is not enough, so she has sought for reassurance on arms sales. Please.
And that is why I am grateful to the honourable member and others in this room today for continuing to shine a light on this conflict and. Can you please pass on our very sincere gratitude to all the constituents who have been in touch with you about this? It is incredibly inspiring to see their solidarity with people that they may never meet. And I want to pay tribute to my predecessors, the right hon. Friend the member for Oxford East and Baroness Chapman of Darlington and the former Foreign Secretary, the member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley for their tireless efforts to strengthen the world's response.
My message today is simple the UK stands with the people of Sudan. This government stands with them and the Foreign Secretary and I stand with them too. We have heard powerfully from all the speakers today about the current situation, not least from the Shadow Minister just now. So I will not rehearse all the statistics you've heard, but I would like to add two of my own. Sudan is now the deadliest place on earth to be a health worker.
It is the second deadliest place on earth to be an aid worker, and there can be no justification in any circumstances for attacks on those who simply serve, to save, simply seek to serve humanity. So when faced with suffering on this scale, our compassion is not enough and our outrage is not enough. I know you want to hear about our actions, so let me go through the points that have been raised in turn. This year, the UK has committed £146 million in support for Sudan to reach over 1.8 million people.
My hon. Friend for barking asked for this confirmation. I am pleased to give it today that as part of that, we have launched a £20 million programme to support survivors of sexual and gender based violence with medical and psychological care, and to ensure that those closest to the crisis can deliver aid to the hardest to reach areas. We have more than doubled our support to local Sudanese responders, including to crucial emergency response rooms.
I am proud of what we are doing on Aid, but as my hon. Friend from Gillingham and Rainham has pointed out, aid alone is not enough, so she has sought for reassurance on arms sales. Please.
15:42
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Never done it for a second. The response would have been positive but I did make a contribution. Sorry, a comment in my contribution which was about Christians in particular who don't seem to be getting any of that aid coming through. Can I ask the minister what can be done to ensure that that the quality of the dispersal of the aid is there for all those ethnic groups, in particular for the Christians who just don't seem to be getting it?
15:43
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you very much. And sorry that I didn't address that in my remarks. So obviously, equality of access to aid is incredibly important. I would be delighted to write to him afterwards about particular questions around freedom of religion and belief and distribution equitably to all communities in Sudan. But my hon. Friend from Gillian asked for reassurance about the position on arms sales. So I want to confirm today that the UK does have one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world, and every single licence is assessed for risk of diversion and kept under careful and continual review.
We have so far reviewed over 3000 export licences for destinations where there have been allegations of diversion or transit to Sudan, and we have thus far found no evidence of UK weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan. But we will, of course, keep that under continual review. My hon. Friend from my right hon. Friend from Oxford East has also asked about whether the UK will be supporting an arms embargo for the whole of Sudan and its expansion, and I am pleased to be able to confirm today that negotiations on the renewal of the UN embargo, as you all know, are currently under way, but the UK is full throatedly supporting efforts to extend its scope.
Last year, of course, we worked closely with the United States and other unSc members to secure its renewal, and the UK bilaterally has a long standing arms embargo in place for the whole of Sudan. Sitting alongside the UN arms embargo on Darfur. A number of members have asked about the diplomatic priority that the conflict in Sudan has for this new Foreign Office team, and I just want to be absolutely clear that it is absolutely central to everything that myself and the Foreign Secretary are trying to achieve, and we are committed to doing all we can to secure a ceasefire.
So in April, the UK hosted the International Sudan Conference in Berlin to marshal the efforts of 55 states present there to press for a ceasefire as the UN Security Council penholder Sudan. We have secured eight resolutions and 12 press statements galvanizing global action towards a ceasefire. We regularly speak, regularly speak to members of the quad and others with influence to care. Efforts towards the US led push for a truce to protect civilians and ensure critical humanitarian aid can reach those most in need.
And our Special Representative, Suzanne, regularly engages with the warring parties advocating for a ceasefire and civilian led transition. We have been asked over the course of today about the nature of the conversations we've been having. I am pleased to confirm that I was recently in Addis Ababa and was able to raise this directly with the chairperson of the African Union, and I can confirm that Fcdo ministers, including the Foreign Secretary, have raised the situation in Sudan with Emirati counterparts and other members of the quad.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson spoke very powerfully today, particularly around the need for atrocity prevention in El Obeid. And I just want to reflect for a moment on what we are doing there. The UK has lobbied at every level, including with the warring parties and those with influence over them as, as we have mentioned, as the UN Security Council Penholder. We have been advocating to raise the risk of atrocities and push for an immediate ceasefire. On 3rd July, we convened an urgent debate at the UN Human Rights Council in the situation in El Obeid, calling for urgent de-escalation, humanitarian access and safe passage for civilians.
On July 6th, a UN UK penned resolution urging the warring parties to agree an immediate ceasefire and comply with the international law was adopted by consensus. And the Liberal Democrat spokesperson also asked if we would be extending the fact finding missions mandate, and I can confirm that we are indeed pushing for that as we led for the mandate in the past. I was asked by my hon. Friend for York Central about our engagement with Sudanese civil society and diaspora, and officials engage frequently with members of the Sudanese diaspora and civil society, including through Quarterly Diaspora Engagement Forum that coordinates engagement across the UK and indeed in the region.
My right hon. Friend from Oxford East asked about the recent reports about chemical weapons use and we are, as you might imagine, hugely concerned by that. And all allegations must be taken seriously and investigated , because any use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere is utterly unacceptable. And as members here present will know, Sudan is a state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and we expect all those in Sudan to abide by its obligations. The honourable member for Chingford and Woodford Green brought the issue of Colombian mercenaries to our attention, and I want to confirm we have already sanctioned Colombian mercenaries suspected of involvement in atrocities in Sudan, as well as those suspected of supplying weapons to the RSS, and we have recently targeted actors suspected of using the gold trade to bankrupt Sudan's brutal war from beyond its borders.
I will say a little bit more about gold now, because this has been raised by contributions by my honourable friend from Alloa and Grangemouth and my hon. Friend the member for Turfan, who has talked in particular about gold. And in July we announced a fresh package of sanctions against illicit gold networks that follows four rounds of designations targeting senior staff and commanders, and those suspected of being complicit in the heinous atrocities committed during the assault on El Fasher last year.
I have been asked to reflect on future sanctions, and as you will appreciate, we generally do not do that because it limits their effectiveness. But I can assure you that your representations have been heard. We have also focused through our work. In August on convening the UK Convened Coalition for Atrocity Prevention and Justice in Sudan for a two day conference in London, where we discussed innovative civilian protection measures and heard directly from the independent fact finding mission ahead of their vital report that we have just been discussing and at the UN General Assembly later this month, I am pleased to confirm that the Foreign Secretary and I will continue to make the case that Sudan cannot, must not and will not be forgotten, because, as we all know so well every single day that this conflict continues, the human cost grows.
But so too does the need for dialogue, justice, and peace. Please.
We have so far reviewed over 3000 export licences for destinations where there have been allegations of diversion or transit to Sudan, and we have thus far found no evidence of UK weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan. But we will, of course, keep that under continual review. My hon. Friend from my right hon. Friend from Oxford East has also asked about whether the UK will be supporting an arms embargo for the whole of Sudan and its expansion, and I am pleased to be able to confirm today that negotiations on the renewal of the UN embargo, as you all know, are currently under way, but the UK is full throatedly supporting efforts to extend its scope.
Last year, of course, we worked closely with the United States and other unSc members to secure its renewal, and the UK bilaterally has a long standing arms embargo in place for the whole of Sudan. Sitting alongside the UN arms embargo on Darfur. A number of members have asked about the diplomatic priority that the conflict in Sudan has for this new Foreign Office team, and I just want to be absolutely clear that it is absolutely central to everything that myself and the Foreign Secretary are trying to achieve, and we are committed to doing all we can to secure a ceasefire.
So in April, the UK hosted the International Sudan Conference in Berlin to marshal the efforts of 55 states present there to press for a ceasefire as the UN Security Council penholder Sudan. We have secured eight resolutions and 12 press statements galvanizing global action towards a ceasefire. We regularly speak, regularly speak to members of the quad and others with influence to care. Efforts towards the US led push for a truce to protect civilians and ensure critical humanitarian aid can reach those most in need.
And our Special Representative, Suzanne, regularly engages with the warring parties advocating for a ceasefire and civilian led transition. We have been asked over the course of today about the nature of the conversations we've been having. I am pleased to confirm that I was recently in Addis Ababa and was able to raise this directly with the chairperson of the African Union, and I can confirm that Fcdo ministers, including the Foreign Secretary, have raised the situation in Sudan with Emirati counterparts and other members of the quad.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson spoke very powerfully today, particularly around the need for atrocity prevention in El Obeid. And I just want to reflect for a moment on what we are doing there. The UK has lobbied at every level, including with the warring parties and those with influence over them as, as we have mentioned, as the UN Security Council Penholder. We have been advocating to raise the risk of atrocities and push for an immediate ceasefire. On 3rd July, we convened an urgent debate at the UN Human Rights Council in the situation in El Obeid, calling for urgent de-escalation, humanitarian access and safe passage for civilians.
On July 6th, a UN UK penned resolution urging the warring parties to agree an immediate ceasefire and comply with the international law was adopted by consensus. And the Liberal Democrat spokesperson also asked if we would be extending the fact finding missions mandate, and I can confirm that we are indeed pushing for that as we led for the mandate in the past. I was asked by my hon. Friend for York Central about our engagement with Sudanese civil society and diaspora, and officials engage frequently with members of the Sudanese diaspora and civil society, including through Quarterly Diaspora Engagement Forum that coordinates engagement across the UK and indeed in the region.
My right hon. Friend from Oxford East asked about the recent reports about chemical weapons use and we are, as you might imagine, hugely concerned by that. And all allegations must be taken seriously and investigated , because any use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere is utterly unacceptable. And as members here present will know, Sudan is a state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and we expect all those in Sudan to abide by its obligations. The honourable member for Chingford and Woodford Green brought the issue of Colombian mercenaries to our attention, and I want to confirm we have already sanctioned Colombian mercenaries suspected of involvement in atrocities in Sudan, as well as those suspected of supplying weapons to the RSS, and we have recently targeted actors suspected of using the gold trade to bankrupt Sudan's brutal war from beyond its borders.
I will say a little bit more about gold now, because this has been raised by contributions by my honourable friend from Alloa and Grangemouth and my hon. Friend the member for Turfan, who has talked in particular about gold. And in July we announced a fresh package of sanctions against illicit gold networks that follows four rounds of designations targeting senior staff and commanders, and those suspected of being complicit in the heinous atrocities committed during the assault on El Fasher last year.
I have been asked to reflect on future sanctions, and as you will appreciate, we generally do not do that because it limits their effectiveness. But I can assure you that your representations have been heard. We have also focused through our work. In August on convening the UK Convened Coalition for Atrocity Prevention and Justice in Sudan for a two day conference in London, where we discussed innovative civilian protection measures and heard directly from the independent fact finding mission ahead of their vital report that we have just been discussing and at the UN General Assembly later this month, I am pleased to confirm that the Foreign Secretary and I will continue to make the case that Sudan cannot, must not and will not be forgotten, because, as we all know so well every single day that this conflict continues, the human cost grows.
But so too does the need for dialogue, justice, and peace. Please.
15:48
15:48
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Following what the minister is saying there, and I certainly the previous Foreign Secretary had indicated. Will the Minister commit to be proactive in bringing statements forward to the House of Commons in relation to the situation in Sudan, because many of the previous statements had to be as a result of urgent questions, whereas a proactivity from her department, I think, would be welcomed across the House and be helpful in this. Shining a light on the issue.
15:49
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Minister, I'm delighted to confirm that, yes, I'll be very proactive, and I say I am so moved and appreciative of all the people who have come to speak to me, all the members who've come to speak today, and indeed your constituents and the work of the Appg that you're all involved in to. So, yes, I'll very happily confirm that both of those of you with specialist knowledge and those of you who are bringing issues on behalf of constituents, please.
15:49
15:49
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
And taking these questions. So one of the things I'd ask for, and I'm keen, I think the House will be very keen to understand when it comes to some of the atrocities, some of the the most evil and wicked and bestial crimes have been carried out, whether it be murder, rape, of, of, of women from theory, destruction of property, injuries which and arms and limbs been taken off people all these things. Is there any attempt whatsoever to collate all the the atrocities are taking place and to collate the people that are involved so that they can be accountable.
15:50
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
And thank the honourable member for his question. Yes, the UK is supporting documentation attempts so that there can be accountability. I am conscious of time, Doctor Allin-khan so I'll draw to a close. We cannot and we will not allow Sudan to slip down the agenda globally or in this House, because Sudan matters, its people matter, their dignity matters and their future matters. So the United Kingdom will continue to stand alongside them in their pursuit of peace, justice and a better future.
15:50
15:50
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, Doctor Allin-khan. And can I just extend my thanks to all colleagues who have so powerfully contributed to this debate today, and for approaching it and bringing some of the more the detailed matters that we have to look at when looking at this crisis that we're facing, whether that be the impact of gender based violence, the role that other actors are playing in the region. It has been a really important discussion, and I thank everyone for their contributions.
I would also like to welcome the minister to her place and warmly thank her for her response, particularly, I think, the specifically, the commitments to addressing gender based violence in the region, as well as the assurances that she has provided today around arms licences and the embargo, and also her commitment to proactively bringing this to the floor of the House. I think it is incredibly important that we have space to do that again. The colleagues notwithstanding, in this room, who have obviously done a lot of work on this, we need to keep the political pressure going, and we need to ensure that this humanitarian crisis is is given the attention that it needs.
I think there is also, despite the clear assurances from the minister, I think there is clear consensus in this chamber that we still need to do more. And our place on the world stage means that it's incumbent on us as a nation to go further. And that's not just for the stability of the region that, you know, rests upon this crisis, but at the heart of this humanitarian crisis, there are the people of Sudan who are looking to the international community to help facilitate an end to a suffering.
So I hope we can continue to work in a constructive manner directly with the minister and more widely, to bring an end to this situation. Thank you.
I would also like to welcome the minister to her place and warmly thank her for her response, particularly, I think, the specifically, the commitments to addressing gender based violence in the region, as well as the assurances that she has provided today around arms licences and the embargo, and also her commitment to proactively bringing this to the floor of the House. I think it is incredibly important that we have space to do that again. The colleagues notwithstanding, in this room, who have obviously done a lot of work on this, we need to keep the political pressure going, and we need to ensure that this humanitarian crisis is is given the attention that it needs.
I think there is also, despite the clear assurances from the minister, I think there is clear consensus in this chamber that we still need to do more. And our place on the world stage means that it's incumbent on us as a nation to go further. And that's not just for the stability of the region that, you know, rests upon this crisis, but at the heart of this humanitarian crisis, there are the people of Sudan who are looking to the international community to help facilitate an end to a suffering.
So I hope we can continue to work in a constructive manner directly with the minister and more widely, to bring an end to this situation. Thank you.
15:52
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you, everyone for their contributions. I can't help but notice that powerfully standing up for women in Sudan have been the person, the member who brought the the debate here and three frontbench women. The question is that this House has considered the conflict in Sudan. As many as are of that opinion, say I. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. Order, order! Order! I will call Liz Jarvis to move the motion, and then I will call the minister to respond.
I remind the members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the member in charge of the debate, and the minister. There will not be an opportunity for the member in charge to wind up, as is the convention, for 30 minute debates. Order, order! Liz Jarvis to move the motion.
I remind the members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the member in charge of the debate, and the minister. There will not be an opportunity for the member in charge to wind up, as is the convention, for 30 minute debates. Order, order! Liz Jarvis to move the motion.
16:00
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I beg to move that this House has considered vehicle theft. Data commissioned by the Liberal Democrats shows that since the start of 2025, 115,448 instances of vehicle theft have been recorded across England and Wales. Home office data shows vehicle theft has risen by 75% in the past decade, even when accounting for the increase in the number of cars on our roads. Theft rates have risen from 2.71% to 4.42 cases per 1000 privately owned cars.
To put these figures into perspective, that is a vehicle stolen in England and Wales every four minutes, according to the DVLA. In the last five years alone, 357,000 cars and vans have been stolen in 2025 to 26. Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary recorded 2408 cases of vehicle theft. And while that represents a slight decrease from the year before, which recorded 2455, it still remains far too many , local police have told me vehicle theft is on.
The increase in my constituency. Car theft is not a victimless crime. Behind every statistic is a person whose life has been disrupted. Police. I will give way.
To put these figures into perspective, that is a vehicle stolen in England and Wales every four minutes, according to the DVLA. In the last five years alone, 357,000 cars and vans have been stolen in 2025 to 26. Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary recorded 2408 cases of vehicle theft. And while that represents a slight decrease from the year before, which recorded 2455, it still remains far too many , local police have told me vehicle theft is on.
The increase in my constituency. Car theft is not a victimless crime. Behind every statistic is a person whose life has been disrupted. Police. I will give way.
16:01
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Can I commend you for bringing this forward and and to refer to vehicle theft. But across the Northern Ireland we've had some 2025. We've had 154 aggravated vehicle taking offences recorded in Northern Ireland. Stolen vehicles often used in driving dangerously in a way that puts the public and emergency services at risk. In June 26th just passed, a man was charged with attempted murder after a stolen police car was driven at an officer, leaving the officer with serious injuries.
Does the honourable lady agree that more has to be done to determine the vigils from engaging in aggravated vehicle taking, including harsher penalties that are necessary to reduce these offences and thereby protect the public?
Does the honourable lady agree that more has to be done to determine the vigils from engaging in aggravated vehicle taking, including harsher penalties that are necessary to reduce these offences and thereby protect the public?
16:02
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
My honourable friend makes a very, very good point and obviously it is about also the human impact of these crimes. I've heard from constituents, including NHS workers who haven't been able to get to work or do the school run because their car vanished overnight. In one case, a couple told me that they saw a van pull up outside their property. Then someone got out and simply drove their car away. In April this year, two of my constituents woke up to find their brand new car had been stolen while they slept.
The insurance payout didn't cover the real cost of a like for like replacement, and the feeling of intrusion was significant for my constituents, whose sense of personal safety and security had been violated by the thought of this crime taking place just metres from where they slept. The emotional toll was difficult for them both, and being without a car for several weeks was very disruptive. They had to cancel their hospital appointments and commitments, including collecting their grandchildren from school and for tradespeople, the impact can be even more direct.
A van is stolen every 52 minutes in this country, taking with it the tools of someone's trade and their ability to earn a living. For many of my constituents, there isn't always a bus to fall back on. With the 61 bus service cut in late 2025, there's one less option for residents who no longer have a car to rely on. Losing a car to theft leaves people feeling exposed and unsafe in their own homes. That sense of security, once lost, is hard to win back.
To understand why this crisis is accelerating, we need to look at how these thefts are actually being carried out. The methods being used today bear little resemblance to the car thefts of a decade ago. The most common method now is relay theft, where criminals use a signal amplifier to capture a key fob signal from inside the owner's home and relay it to a device held next to the car, tricking the vehicle into unlocking and starting without the key ever being present.
All controller area network bus injection, which involves physically accessing the vehicle's on board computer through an exposed entry point using plug in devices disguised as harmless electronics. What should concern us most is how accessible this technology has become. These are not improvised tools. These are not improvised tools. Devices targeting high end vehicles can sell for more than £20,000. A serious criminal market built around vehicle theft, and I will give way.
Giving way vehicle theft across the West Midlands has fallen by 13.6% since the peak in 2020 223, which is welcome news for my constituents in Wolverhampton North East. But it's very little consolation if your vehicle has been taken and that is a devastating experience. Does the honourable lady agree that the Minister and we all must continue to work with the police and work with manufacturers to ensure that vehicles are harder to steal? Well, I thank my honourable friend and I absolutely agree.
And working with manufacturers as well is absolutely key. As this technology has advanced, prices have fallen with cheaper devices, including low cost models from China now appearing in the UK, and yet videos demonstrating exactly how to use these devices remain available online. I would urge the government to press platforms to remove this content because, as things stand, we are allowing criminals to access step by step instructions on how to steal a car.
The scale of this shift is reflected clearly in the data. In 2019, signal manipulation accounted for just 14% of vehicle theft methods. However, by 2024, that figure had risen to 58%. Manufacturers have made real strides in vehicle security. The introduction of electronic engine immobilizers meant that unauthorised starting of an engine became far more difficult, requiring a key to transmit a unique. I cannot pronounce this word cryptographic code to the. To the vehicle.
However, in 2013, the long term decline in vehicle theft reversed a shift that coincided with the introduction of keyless and remote start vehicles, which introduced a new vulnerability into what had largely been a successful security system. And that's the core of the problem. Manufacturers can only defend against threats they already know about. They are investing to keep up, but criminals are innovating faster than they can build. The numbers make this vulnerability hard to ignore.
Vehicles between 5 and 10 years old are the most likely to be stolen, as their fixed security systems cannot be updated to keep pace with current threats, leaving owners exposed to threats their vehicles were never built to withstand, as 73% of vehicles stolen between 2024 and 2025 were taken straight from their owner's driveway or street. A steering wheel lock or wheel clamp adds a visible physical barrier that can be enough to deter a thief, even when a vehicle's electronic security has been compromised.
Something as simple as parking in a well-lit area can make the same difference. Given that 80% of vehicle thefts have taken place between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., with thieves relying on speed and the cover of darkness. I welcome the provisions in the Crime and Policing Act to tackle the current technological nature of vehicle theft. For years, criminals have been exploiting gaps in the law , using signal jammers and relay devices to bypass security systems that drive us rightly assumed were protecting their vehicles through legislating to criminalise the possession, manufacture, sale and supply of these devices.
This act closes that gap with anyone caught, with one now having to prove a legitimate, legitimate reason or face up to five years in prison and an unlimited fine. I will give way.
The insurance payout didn't cover the real cost of a like for like replacement, and the feeling of intrusion was significant for my constituents, whose sense of personal safety and security had been violated by the thought of this crime taking place just metres from where they slept. The emotional toll was difficult for them both, and being without a car for several weeks was very disruptive. They had to cancel their hospital appointments and commitments, including collecting their grandchildren from school and for tradespeople, the impact can be even more direct.
A van is stolen every 52 minutes in this country, taking with it the tools of someone's trade and their ability to earn a living. For many of my constituents, there isn't always a bus to fall back on. With the 61 bus service cut in late 2025, there's one less option for residents who no longer have a car to rely on. Losing a car to theft leaves people feeling exposed and unsafe in their own homes. That sense of security, once lost, is hard to win back.
To understand why this crisis is accelerating, we need to look at how these thefts are actually being carried out. The methods being used today bear little resemblance to the car thefts of a decade ago. The most common method now is relay theft, where criminals use a signal amplifier to capture a key fob signal from inside the owner's home and relay it to a device held next to the car, tricking the vehicle into unlocking and starting without the key ever being present.
All controller area network bus injection, which involves physically accessing the vehicle's on board computer through an exposed entry point using plug in devices disguised as harmless electronics. What should concern us most is how accessible this technology has become. These are not improvised tools. These are not improvised tools. Devices targeting high end vehicles can sell for more than £20,000. A serious criminal market built around vehicle theft, and I will give way.
Giving way vehicle theft across the West Midlands has fallen by 13.6% since the peak in 2020 223, which is welcome news for my constituents in Wolverhampton North East. But it's very little consolation if your vehicle has been taken and that is a devastating experience. Does the honourable lady agree that the Minister and we all must continue to work with the police and work with manufacturers to ensure that vehicles are harder to steal? Well, I thank my honourable friend and I absolutely agree.
And working with manufacturers as well is absolutely key. As this technology has advanced, prices have fallen with cheaper devices, including low cost models from China now appearing in the UK, and yet videos demonstrating exactly how to use these devices remain available online. I would urge the government to press platforms to remove this content because, as things stand, we are allowing criminals to access step by step instructions on how to steal a car.
The scale of this shift is reflected clearly in the data. In 2019, signal manipulation accounted for just 14% of vehicle theft methods. However, by 2024, that figure had risen to 58%. Manufacturers have made real strides in vehicle security. The introduction of electronic engine immobilizers meant that unauthorised starting of an engine became far more difficult, requiring a key to transmit a unique. I cannot pronounce this word cryptographic code to the. To the vehicle.
However, in 2013, the long term decline in vehicle theft reversed a shift that coincided with the introduction of keyless and remote start vehicles, which introduced a new vulnerability into what had largely been a successful security system. And that's the core of the problem. Manufacturers can only defend against threats they already know about. They are investing to keep up, but criminals are innovating faster than they can build. The numbers make this vulnerability hard to ignore.
Vehicles between 5 and 10 years old are the most likely to be stolen, as their fixed security systems cannot be updated to keep pace with current threats, leaving owners exposed to threats their vehicles were never built to withstand, as 73% of vehicles stolen between 2024 and 2025 were taken straight from their owner's driveway or street. A steering wheel lock or wheel clamp adds a visible physical barrier that can be enough to deter a thief, even when a vehicle's electronic security has been compromised.
Something as simple as parking in a well-lit area can make the same difference. Given that 80% of vehicle thefts have taken place between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., with thieves relying on speed and the cover of darkness. I welcome the provisions in the Crime and Policing Act to tackle the current technological nature of vehicle theft. For years, criminals have been exploiting gaps in the law , using signal jammers and relay devices to bypass security systems that drive us rightly assumed were protecting their vehicles through legislating to criminalise the possession, manufacture, sale and supply of these devices.
This act closes that gap with anyone caught, with one now having to prove a legitimate, legitimate reason or face up to five years in prison and an unlimited fine. I will give way.
16:08
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
I thank the honourable member for giving way and for securing this debate in Northern Ireland. In 2023 2024, there were 2393 vehicle thefts with a population of 1.9 million. That equates to 126 thefts of cars for every 100,000 people with the honourable member agree that tackling the problem requires a layered approach to vehicle security, making vehicles harder to steal, easier to trace and recover, and less attractive to target in the first place. I
16:08
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
absolutely agree with the honourable member. While this legislation closes one gap, the right to repair allows another to remain wide open. Right to repair legislation exists to stop manufacturers from overcharging charging drivers for repairs, which is a necessary principle designed to help protect consumers. However, the practice of providing car owners with detailed insights into how a car's security systems work is being exploited by criminal gangs who are using that information to build new theft devices.
With the Crime and Policing Act, starving thieves of one tool right to repair is handing them the blueprint for the next. Will the minister commit today to reviewing the current connection between right to repair legislation and vehicle security to help combat vehicle theft? Despite the Crime and Policing Act, the odds remain stacked in the thief's favour, just a 6.7% chance of being caught, and fewer than 1 in 4 thefts even investigated. There is a widely held view that vehicle theft has effectively been decriminalised, with a perception that law enforcement has neither the will nor the resources to respond.
In fact, Liberal Democrat research has found that police did not even attend the scene. In over 70% of car theft cases, reinforcing, reinforcing for many victims the sense that no one is coming. Doctor Alan Khan As I said earlier, we are no longer dealing with opportunistic criminals. These are organised operations, laundering stolen parts through online marketplaces and are adapting faster than our current systems built to respond to are built to respond to.
This is a sophisticated technological criminal industry and it requires a response to match. This is not just a regional concern at the national level. Intelligence intelligence collection on vehicle theft rests with a single Opel analyst. Does the minister believe that one analyst is sufficient to build a national picture of an organised cross-border crime, and if not, what is being done to help resource this properly ? Intense pressure on police funding? Police force funding has resulted in forces scaling back their vehicle theft investigative unit, causing a decline not only in terms of manpower but specifically a loss of officers expertise and skill sets, which are not being replaced.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for a return to proper community policing, ensuring a trusted presence in all neighbourhoods focused on preventing and solving crimes. In December 2024, the government announced their Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee, pledging 13,000 more officers in neighbourhood policing roles. However, since that announcement, the number of officers has actually fallen and by March this year we have 4000 fewer frontline officers protecting our streets from the years before. If the government is serious about this crisis, it needs to deliver, not promise more officers on our streets.
Crime reporting is processed primarily through helpline reporting. This has diminished the relationship between the communities they serve and local police forces. We are calling for a police front desk to be set up in every community, to allow people to report crimes and share information with the police face to face in accessible locations. And I would just say that I'm very proud to have helped secure a police station for Eastleigh. More personal contact means more crimes are properly investigated and more criminals are caught.
Doctor Alan Khan vehicle theft in this country has become an epidemic. It is organised, it is evolving and it is being met with a system that has neither the resources nor the coordination to keep pace. We have seen what good legislation can achieve through the Crime and Policing Act, but a single loophole is enough to undo that progress. We have seen manufacturers innovate, only to be outpaced by criminals who innovate faster. Still, we have seen police forces stretched so thin that catching a car thief has become the exception, not the rule.
My constituents in Eastleigh deserve better than a 6.7% chance of justice. I hope the Minister will use today's debate not simply to acknowledge this crisis, but to act on it.
With the Crime and Policing Act, starving thieves of one tool right to repair is handing them the blueprint for the next. Will the minister commit today to reviewing the current connection between right to repair legislation and vehicle security to help combat vehicle theft? Despite the Crime and Policing Act, the odds remain stacked in the thief's favour, just a 6.7% chance of being caught, and fewer than 1 in 4 thefts even investigated. There is a widely held view that vehicle theft has effectively been decriminalised, with a perception that law enforcement has neither the will nor the resources to respond.
In fact, Liberal Democrat research has found that police did not even attend the scene. In over 70% of car theft cases, reinforcing, reinforcing for many victims the sense that no one is coming. Doctor Alan Khan As I said earlier, we are no longer dealing with opportunistic criminals. These are organised operations, laundering stolen parts through online marketplaces and are adapting faster than our current systems built to respond to are built to respond to.
This is a sophisticated technological criminal industry and it requires a response to match. This is not just a regional concern at the national level. Intelligence intelligence collection on vehicle theft rests with a single Opel analyst. Does the minister believe that one analyst is sufficient to build a national picture of an organised cross-border crime, and if not, what is being done to help resource this properly ? Intense pressure on police funding? Police force funding has resulted in forces scaling back their vehicle theft investigative unit, causing a decline not only in terms of manpower but specifically a loss of officers expertise and skill sets, which are not being replaced.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for a return to proper community policing, ensuring a trusted presence in all neighbourhoods focused on preventing and solving crimes. In December 2024, the government announced their Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee, pledging 13,000 more officers in neighbourhood policing roles. However, since that announcement, the number of officers has actually fallen and by March this year we have 4000 fewer frontline officers protecting our streets from the years before. If the government is serious about this crisis, it needs to deliver, not promise more officers on our streets.
Crime reporting is processed primarily through helpline reporting. This has diminished the relationship between the communities they serve and local police forces. We are calling for a police front desk to be set up in every community, to allow people to report crimes and share information with the police face to face in accessible locations. And I would just say that I'm very proud to have helped secure a police station for Eastleigh. More personal contact means more crimes are properly investigated and more criminals are caught.
Doctor Alan Khan vehicle theft in this country has become an epidemic. It is organised, it is evolving and it is being met with a system that has neither the resources nor the coordination to keep pace. We have seen what good legislation can achieve through the Crime and Policing Act, but a single loophole is enough to undo that progress. We have seen manufacturers innovate, only to be outpaced by criminals who innovate faster. Still, we have seen police forces stretched so thin that catching a car thief has become the exception, not the rule.
My constituents in Eastleigh deserve better than a 6.7% chance of justice. I hope the Minister will use today's debate not simply to acknowledge this crisis, but to act on it.
16:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
This House has considered the matter of vehicle theft, Minister. Thank you, Doctor Alencon. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. And can I thank the member, the honourable member for Eastleigh, for securing this debate. I want to start by thanking the National Police Chiefs Council lead in this area, ACC Sarah Graham and her colleague Olly Fisher, who are leading the work nationally on our response to vehicle crime.
If you look at vehicle crime, how it soared in the 70s and 80s, and then we had a big fall as new technology and new designs, we designed out some of the vehicle theft and vehicle crime. It then increased over about the last ten years, as the member suggested, but has dropped over the last two years. In part, that's because of some of the disruption that the police have been able to do, in part , ridiculously.
Issues like the Strait of Hormuz actually makes a difference because vehicles are often shipped abroad when they're stolen. And just as global trade is interrupted, global criminals are also interrupted . When there's when there's big, big global shifts like what we've seen in Iran. So there are multiple reasons, but but the numbers have gone down over over the last two years. There are at the moment, I think, several bodies that look at how to sort of solve the problem.
There are the local police forces, and the honourable lady pointed to numbers in terms of police officers. What we are trying to do and committed to do is to put 13,000 more police in our neighborhoods and in her own area. There are 88 more full time neighbourhood officers there than there were when we came to power, who are on the streets policing our neighbourhoods in the way that she would expect. But the changing nature of vehicle crime means that this is really this is large criminal gangs driving this crime.
These cars are stolen . Using the technology that she has explained in the ways that she has explained. They are then shipped basically abroad and sold on. These are these are large criminal gangs. So neighbourhood policing is a very important part of the picture. But actually we're talking about large criminal gangs that we need to address nationally. There are some bodies who are doing really good work in this area. So the MVCIS, which is financed by the private sector that actually does some of the work opening containers at ports.
And there's more we can do in that space. If cars are stolen and taken abroad. There's Opal, which she referred to, which is the Npcc intelligence unit. And there's a body called the National Vehicle Crime Reduction Partnership, which we in the Home Office give £1 million towards and is funded by the private sector, and they have been in place for about two years. The fundamental problem here, when you have serious organised crime, that isn't the sort of drugs and the guns and the very high harm crime, because of the nature of the 43 police forces and quite often the car will be stolen here, taken there.
Go to a port, it might pass through 3 or 4 different forces. It's not joined up. It's why one of the reasons why our reform programme is going to help with these kinds of serious specialist crime. When we have a national police service that will be responsible for serious organised crime and will bring together a lot of the different national agencies and oversee a more regional structure of policing with local policing units at the bottom that are responsible to their local communities, that will enable the forces to flex more the specialisms where it needs to be.
So of course, organised crime needs to look at drugs and guns and the very high harm people smuggling, of course, but what seems to have happened with this car theft is we have things that are less high harm, but actually huge cost, because this is a very lucrative business for the criminals. It's a very expensive business for us. And ACC Sarah Graham will tell you how much it costs, but it's it's something in the order of £1.7 billion.
You know, this the annual cost. So we need to look at it centrally. I do think that the reform programme will help tackle this challenge. There was an Interpol conference last year or earlier this year. Forgive me. I can't recall where lots of countries came together to talk about this challenge. There are lots of countries that have the same problem. So there are countries who are, for example, Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, who are net exporters of of stolen vehicles.
And they are taken to certain ports. DRC, UAE are two examples and then sold on to other parts of the world. And there are lots of problems with that network. For example, Russia, if a car enters Russia, they do no checks on who owns it, whether it's stolen or not. So basically, as soon as it gets to Russia, off it goes. What we see with some of these vehicles is that they are sent into war zones.
So into Ukraine via. Some of those countries nearby, or the more high end vehicles are sold on to be used in other countries in the sort of normal way you would expect. So there's there's a pattern here which we are increasingly understanding. And the question is, how do we disrupt it? And I think part of the answer is the legislation that we've introduced. That is a really good first step.
Some of this kit that these criminals use. So the device that logs into a vehicle that costs, as I understand it, 30 to £50,000 to get. So these are these are obviously very serious organised criminals who are able to have the money to buy this kit. But we now do have the legislation, although it's not been enacted yet. But we've passed the law, but it hasn't it hasn't commenced. That will make a difference.
I noted the honourable lady's point around the online platforms in the videos, and I will take that away. That wasn't something I was well aware of, so I will definitely take that away as something to raise with the tech companies, alongside the very long list of other things that we are raising with the tech companies in terms of dangerous, dangerous things that are online and should be taken down. But I will take that. So there's how do we sort of work with the manufacturers to design out the crime? How do we make sure the legislation is in place to disrupt as much as possible? There is a question of the ports and how much how easy it is to get vehicles out of the country, and we need to look at that.
There's the sort of international picture and making sure we're sharing information across police forces around the world, and making sure we're sharing information where we can. And then there's this central capability that I think we need as part of the National Police Service, to make sure we are treating this with a seriousness that it deserves. Honourable lady talked about the impact it has on individuals and and communities, and I think she's right.
There are some similarities, I think, with the way that the theft of mobile phones and how the police respond to that is evolving. So for an increasing period, more and more people were having their phones stolen, each being dealt with by a local police force individually as one individual crime. When the Metropolitan Police in particular, put some of this together and realise that there are organised criminal networks that were taking these phones, wrapping them in silver foil, putting them on a plane, sending them to China and then selling them on from there.
We understood the criminal network, and they are now targeting those networks and trying to disrupt them in various different ways. It's a similar picture, I think, and we need to respond to it in a similar way. So I do think, as I say, that the reform programme will help with that. Of course, we need to keep looking at new technology and new legislation and things that we can that we can do. Very, very grateful to the police who are already tackling this challenge and very grateful to the work, in particular of ACC Sarah Graham, who's sort of leading this work and is pushing us in the Home Office to go further and do more.
What we're trying to do in the Home Office with the reform programme is not just design a structure that enables the police to do their job, but also to enable us to sort of step back and not have to provide small bits of funding for each individual crime type, but actually give the police the resources in the right place to tackle the problem. There is some evidence, although not lots, but that the criminals who are stealing these cars and sending them abroad are also taking part in other organised criminality of a more dangerous kind.
Guns, drugs. Not as I understand it as much. You know, we need we need to gather more intelligence there. But as is often the case, criminals don't stick to one crime type. They. They do lots of things all at the same time. So there are probably a series of organised criminals that we should be targeting that that are stealing the cars, taking them abroad, but also doing other things that, that are more high harm.
So I think it's a, it's a very timely conversation. It's something we're very alive to in the home Office. It's something we want to enable the police to respond to. It is a changing nature of of crime. It's why people see a spate of car theft in one area. It's because it's it's these are stolen to order. They're very serious organised criminals who know what they're doing. They come into an area, they steal the cars, and then they move on somewhere else, in part because they know different forces will then not be joining up in, in, in the way that I described.
So can I thank her again for her intervention and my colleague as well from Wolverhampton North, for raising the issues that her constituents are facing. And just hopefully that reassures the honourable lady that we are taking this very seriously. I appreciate all suggestions and ideas as to what more we can do. Thank you.
If you look at vehicle crime, how it soared in the 70s and 80s, and then we had a big fall as new technology and new designs, we designed out some of the vehicle theft and vehicle crime. It then increased over about the last ten years, as the member suggested, but has dropped over the last two years. In part, that's because of some of the disruption that the police have been able to do, in part , ridiculously.
Issues like the Strait of Hormuz actually makes a difference because vehicles are often shipped abroad when they're stolen. And just as global trade is interrupted, global criminals are also interrupted . When there's when there's big, big global shifts like what we've seen in Iran. So there are multiple reasons, but but the numbers have gone down over over the last two years. There are at the moment, I think, several bodies that look at how to sort of solve the problem.
There are the local police forces, and the honourable lady pointed to numbers in terms of police officers. What we are trying to do and committed to do is to put 13,000 more police in our neighborhoods and in her own area. There are 88 more full time neighbourhood officers there than there were when we came to power, who are on the streets policing our neighbourhoods in the way that she would expect. But the changing nature of vehicle crime means that this is really this is large criminal gangs driving this crime.
These cars are stolen . Using the technology that she has explained in the ways that she has explained. They are then shipped basically abroad and sold on. These are these are large criminal gangs. So neighbourhood policing is a very important part of the picture. But actually we're talking about large criminal gangs that we need to address nationally. There are some bodies who are doing really good work in this area. So the MVCIS, which is financed by the private sector that actually does some of the work opening containers at ports.
And there's more we can do in that space. If cars are stolen and taken abroad. There's Opal, which she referred to, which is the Npcc intelligence unit. And there's a body called the National Vehicle Crime Reduction Partnership, which we in the Home Office give £1 million towards and is funded by the private sector, and they have been in place for about two years. The fundamental problem here, when you have serious organised crime, that isn't the sort of drugs and the guns and the very high harm crime, because of the nature of the 43 police forces and quite often the car will be stolen here, taken there.
Go to a port, it might pass through 3 or 4 different forces. It's not joined up. It's why one of the reasons why our reform programme is going to help with these kinds of serious specialist crime. When we have a national police service that will be responsible for serious organised crime and will bring together a lot of the different national agencies and oversee a more regional structure of policing with local policing units at the bottom that are responsible to their local communities, that will enable the forces to flex more the specialisms where it needs to be.
So of course, organised crime needs to look at drugs and guns and the very high harm people smuggling, of course, but what seems to have happened with this car theft is we have things that are less high harm, but actually huge cost, because this is a very lucrative business for the criminals. It's a very expensive business for us. And ACC Sarah Graham will tell you how much it costs, but it's it's something in the order of £1.7 billion.
You know, this the annual cost. So we need to look at it centrally. I do think that the reform programme will help tackle this challenge. There was an Interpol conference last year or earlier this year. Forgive me. I can't recall where lots of countries came together to talk about this challenge. There are lots of countries that have the same problem. So there are countries who are, for example, Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, who are net exporters of of stolen vehicles.
And they are taken to certain ports. DRC, UAE are two examples and then sold on to other parts of the world. And there are lots of problems with that network. For example, Russia, if a car enters Russia, they do no checks on who owns it, whether it's stolen or not. So basically, as soon as it gets to Russia, off it goes. What we see with some of these vehicles is that they are sent into war zones.
So into Ukraine via. Some of those countries nearby, or the more high end vehicles are sold on to be used in other countries in the sort of normal way you would expect. So there's there's a pattern here which we are increasingly understanding. And the question is, how do we disrupt it? And I think part of the answer is the legislation that we've introduced. That is a really good first step.
Some of this kit that these criminals use. So the device that logs into a vehicle that costs, as I understand it, 30 to £50,000 to get. So these are these are obviously very serious organised criminals who are able to have the money to buy this kit. But we now do have the legislation, although it's not been enacted yet. But we've passed the law, but it hasn't it hasn't commenced. That will make a difference.
I noted the honourable lady's point around the online platforms in the videos, and I will take that away. That wasn't something I was well aware of, so I will definitely take that away as something to raise with the tech companies, alongside the very long list of other things that we are raising with the tech companies in terms of dangerous, dangerous things that are online and should be taken down. But I will take that. So there's how do we sort of work with the manufacturers to design out the crime? How do we make sure the legislation is in place to disrupt as much as possible? There is a question of the ports and how much how easy it is to get vehicles out of the country, and we need to look at that.
There's the sort of international picture and making sure we're sharing information across police forces around the world, and making sure we're sharing information where we can. And then there's this central capability that I think we need as part of the National Police Service, to make sure we are treating this with a seriousness that it deserves. Honourable lady talked about the impact it has on individuals and and communities, and I think she's right.
There are some similarities, I think, with the way that the theft of mobile phones and how the police respond to that is evolving. So for an increasing period, more and more people were having their phones stolen, each being dealt with by a local police force individually as one individual crime. When the Metropolitan Police in particular, put some of this together and realise that there are organised criminal networks that were taking these phones, wrapping them in silver foil, putting them on a plane, sending them to China and then selling them on from there.
We understood the criminal network, and they are now targeting those networks and trying to disrupt them in various different ways. It's a similar picture, I think, and we need to respond to it in a similar way. So I do think, as I say, that the reform programme will help with that. Of course, we need to keep looking at new technology and new legislation and things that we can that we can do. Very, very grateful to the police who are already tackling this challenge and very grateful to the work, in particular of ACC Sarah Graham, who's sort of leading this work and is pushing us in the Home Office to go further and do more.
What we're trying to do in the Home Office with the reform programme is not just design a structure that enables the police to do their job, but also to enable us to sort of step back and not have to provide small bits of funding for each individual crime type, but actually give the police the resources in the right place to tackle the problem. There is some evidence, although not lots, but that the criminals who are stealing these cars and sending them abroad are also taking part in other organised criminality of a more dangerous kind.
Guns, drugs. Not as I understand it as much. You know, we need we need to gather more intelligence there. But as is often the case, criminals don't stick to one crime type. They. They do lots of things all at the same time. So there are probably a series of organised criminals that we should be targeting that that are stealing the cars, taking them abroad, but also doing other things that, that are more high harm.
So I think it's a, it's a very timely conversation. It's something we're very alive to in the home Office. It's something we want to enable the police to respond to. It is a changing nature of of crime. It's why people see a spate of car theft in one area. It's because it's it's these are stolen to order. They're very serious organised criminals who know what they're doing. They come into an area, they steal the cars, and then they move on somewhere else, in part because they know different forces will then not be joining up in, in, in the way that I described.
So can I thank her again for her intervention and my colleague as well from Wolverhampton North, for raising the issues that her constituents are facing. And just hopefully that reassures the honourable lady that we are taking this very seriously. I appreciate all suggestions and ideas as to what more we can do. Thank you.
16:24
16:29
16:29
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
It's a pleasure to serve. And I'm grateful for this opportunity to debate the media Green Paper, which is a hugely consequential document which has profound implications for all of our broadcasters and news publishers and technology companies. And I welcome a lot that is contained within the Green Paper. Nevertheless, it does contain some extremely controversial proposals, and I regret the fact that Parliament hasn't really had an opportunity to debate those proposals since the publication of the Green Paper, and now the consultation period has come to an end.
And so I hope the Minister will still take account of the contributions of myself and other members here in considering the way forward. It is also regrettable, I think, that we only have an hour, and I will try and keep brief, because I know there are quite a few people who have made the effort to attend. So I'm going to focus on two issues, which I think are the ones which are perhaps the most controversial within the Green Paper.
On the first one, I am generally supportive of the government, and that is on the suggestion that in 2034 we should move towards wholly Internet Protocol TV and discontinue digital terrestrial transmission. There are clear benefits of doing so. It will represent a considerable cost saving to the broadcasters, which is outlined in the Green Paper. It will also free up spectrum for which there could be any number of alternative uses, but undoubtedly will provide additional value to consumers.
And the third reason why I welcome it is because it opens up an option. On the other big issue, which is subject to a different green paper, and is perhaps the elephant in the room, which is the future of the BBC, and those who have argued that we should move towards an element of subscription, at least in the BBC. The biggest argument against that is that you can't do it. Whilst the BBC is subject to digital terrestrial transmission.
I'll give way to it.
And so I hope the Minister will still take account of the contributions of myself and other members here in considering the way forward. It is also regrettable, I think, that we only have an hour, and I will try and keep brief, because I know there are quite a few people who have made the effort to attend. So I'm going to focus on two issues, which I think are the ones which are perhaps the most controversial within the Green Paper.
On the first one, I am generally supportive of the government, and that is on the suggestion that in 2034 we should move towards wholly Internet Protocol TV and discontinue digital terrestrial transmission. There are clear benefits of doing so. It will represent a considerable cost saving to the broadcasters, which is outlined in the Green Paper. It will also free up spectrum for which there could be any number of alternative uses, but undoubtedly will provide additional value to consumers.
And the third reason why I welcome it is because it opens up an option. On the other big issue, which is subject to a different green paper, and is perhaps the elephant in the room, which is the future of the BBC, and those who have argued that we should move towards an element of subscription, at least in the BBC. The biggest argument against that is that you can't do it. Whilst the BBC is subject to digital terrestrial transmission.
I'll give way to it.
16:32
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
I'm grateful to my Right Honourable friend and I just wanted to pick up because I've not studied it in enough detail. Turning off the digital signal Freeview signal based on the fact that every house would need to have an internet supply, is it that internet supply would be provided for free, or that people would have to subscribe to get that internet supply in?
16:32
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Well, my honourable friend raises a perfectly valid question, and I did want to come on to acknowledge that there are concerns. We had a debate in Westminster Hall not that long ago, where a number of my own colleagues turned out, particularly from Scotland, to express concern that the quality of reception of broadband in their own constituencies is very poor, and that the consequence of switching off DTT might be to prevent them from receiving television at all. That is clearly unacceptable, and this can only go ahead if we reach the position, which I think both governments have aspired to, which is universal access to high speed broadband of a sufficient quality to allow IPTV to take to be received.
16:33
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I thank you for giving way. I am concerned about the impact of the switch off on commercial radio. Now, the BBC may be able to absorb some of the consequences of the DTT switch off alongside the savings it makes from its own television distribution, but commercial broadcasters do not have the same offsetting savings. Does he agree with me that the government should therefore consider how we can ensure that commercial radio is not the unintended loser from a reform designed principally around television?
16:33
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I do strongly agree with the honourable gentleman. It was actually the next point I was coming to. At the moment, the transmission network, which transmits a broadcast digital terrestrial transmission, a lot of those towers which are owned by Arqiva, also carry the transmitters for commercial radio. And he's absolutely right. But if you if you turn off the television transmission, then all the costs then get loaded onto the remaining broadcasters, which are the commercial radio stations.
And therefore that too is something which I hope that the minister will at least address, because the estimate I saw was that potentially it could result in increasing costs of over 50% a year for commercial radio stations. And I'll give way.
And therefore that too is something which I hope that the minister will at least address, because the estimate I saw was that potentially it could result in increasing costs of over 50% a year for commercial radio stations. And I'll give way.
16:34
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
And one aspect that for us in Northern Ireland is similar to the rest of the United Kingdom and the Green Paper, that it will directly threaten not only our local broadcasting sector in Northern Ireland, but the connectivity of our rural and our most vulnerable communities. The 2034 switch off of digital terrestrial TV has focused almost entirely on what appears on our television screens, but the real casualty is commercial and local radio, and the only gentleman's right to underline the issue.
The economic modelling shows a dramatic transmission costs surge of almost 50% per year for commercial radio. That will be the death of commercial radio. Does he agree?
The economic modelling shows a dramatic transmission costs surge of almost 50% per year for commercial radio. That will be the death of commercial radio. Does he agree?
16:35
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Well, I certainly think that the my hon. Friend is completely right that this is an issue that is going to have to be addressed before we can proceed. And actually, the question of cost, which was raised by my hon. Friend, is also. Well, there are people who probably do have access to broadband if they chose to pay for it, but they can't afford to do so, and they too would be severely affected if suddenly they were unable to receive television by their means.
So the the ambition to reach a point in 2034 where we are able to switch off DTT is one that I support, but there are serious questions that need to be addressed before we reach that point. Now I will just turn to the other major issue of concern. And it's a two fold concern, because there are two parallel policies that the government is advancing. On the question of prominence. Now, I was the minister responsible for the passage of the Media Act in last Parliament, and it's a great delight to see some familiar faces on the officials bench across the chamber, who I have worked with in the past, and the Media Act was all about ensuring that our public service broadcasters were still highly visible in a world where people are now getting smart TVs, connected TVs.
And so it simply maintained the prominence requirements. And that's something which I think was important. And all of the broadcasters agreed. But it is now suggested that the same prominence should be extended to video sharing platforms. Now, I recognise and agree with the government's concern about the prominence of disinformation. I sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee. We did a big inquiry into disinformation and the best counter to disinformation is accurate, sourced, objective journalistic content.
And I kind that our public service broadcasters do provide. But nevertheless, YouTube, which is the main video sharing platform which is under discussion, was never intended as the vehicle for the big broadcasters. It's all about user generated content. And there is a real concern that if you push the main broadcasters into greater prominence, of course there are some people who will get less prominence and those are the creators, the start ups, the UGC, and that actually undermines one of the original purposes of of YouTube.
If I might give way to my hon. Friend who's waiting and then.
So the the ambition to reach a point in 2034 where we are able to switch off DTT is one that I support, but there are serious questions that need to be addressed before we reach that point. Now I will just turn to the other major issue of concern. And it's a two fold concern, because there are two parallel policies that the government is advancing. On the question of prominence. Now, I was the minister responsible for the passage of the Media Act in last Parliament, and it's a great delight to see some familiar faces on the officials bench across the chamber, who I have worked with in the past, and the Media Act was all about ensuring that our public service broadcasters were still highly visible in a world where people are now getting smart TVs, connected TVs.
And so it simply maintained the prominence requirements. And that's something which I think was important. And all of the broadcasters agreed. But it is now suggested that the same prominence should be extended to video sharing platforms. Now, I recognise and agree with the government's concern about the prominence of disinformation. I sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee. We did a big inquiry into disinformation and the best counter to disinformation is accurate, sourced, objective journalistic content.
And I kind that our public service broadcasters do provide. But nevertheless, YouTube, which is the main video sharing platform which is under discussion, was never intended as the vehicle for the big broadcasters. It's all about user generated content. And there is a real concern that if you push the main broadcasters into greater prominence, of course there are some people who will get less prominence and those are the creators, the start ups, the UGC, and that actually undermines one of the original purposes of of YouTube.
If I might give way to my hon. Friend who's waiting and then.
16:38
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Thank you. I just wanted to come in on the matter of trust, because one of the most trusted media or news sources is local media, with 42 million readers a week. And I never miss an opportunity to say the new shop is great whenever I have the chance. Do you think this is also an opportunity for the BBC, which has done some great work with the Local Democracy Reporting Service, but to enhance its effective working with local media so we don't use that trusted local news source.
16:38
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
As one of the originators of the Local Democracy Reporting Service. I of course, agree with my hon. Friend, it's incredibly important that we have a thriving local media sector, and the BBC plays a very important role in maintaining that. So anything which promotes BBC content, I hope, would equally promote the local content which which hasn't had the same degree of attention, which I think it deserves. I'll give way quickly to the honourable.
16:38
16:38
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
For giving way. I, I'm interested in his comments about prominence and I wonder how he sees his view. Sitting alongside the voting age, reducing to 16 by the end of this Parliament and in time, almost certainly for the next general election. Young people do not get much of their information from linear broadcast channels. They get a lot of it from places like YouTube. I wonder how he reconciles his views on prominence.
In my opinion, it's a necessary but not sufficient way of getting good, trusted media to young people to equip them to vote.
In my opinion, it's a necessary but not sufficient way of getting good, trusted media to young people to equip them to vote.
16:39
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Well, I. John Whittingdale, that is perhaps even more relevant to the second prong of the government's proposals, which I'll come on to, which is about social media. But just before I leave, the issue of local media, of course, the other one of the other flagship policies of government is devolution. And if we are to have more power given to local authorities, mayors, unitary authorities, then people need to be able to know what they're doing.
And the absence of local media is a real problem in that respect. So it's going to become ever more important to promote local media. But I do want to come on lastly, because I know others want to speak to the second prong of government's policy, which is about the prominence or promotion of trusted news providers on social media. And I have to say, this does give me some considerable concern. There are lots of problems around definition.
I mean, firstly, what is news? Secondly, what does prominence mean in terms of a social media platform which which people access with their own personalised feed based on their content and their previous choices. And therefore I think there are practical difficulties around it. I know the government has already put in place the concept of recognised news publishers under the Online Safety Act, but that was a very different purpose. And the the problem I have is the idea that a government agency of some kind is going to be saying that this is a trusted news provider, and therefore this is not.
And deciding or at least seeking to influence where those appear in terms of people's choices. So I take the honourable lady's point that young people are more and more turning to social media, but I don't think this is the answer, because it looks to me like a very dangerous extension of government interference in the freedom of the press and the right to free speech. And I would also just like the assurance of the minister that there is no linkage intended to any form of regulation, and the idea that perhaps news providers might be given prominence if they accept a regulatory structure which the government wants, would be equally dangerous.
In some ways, I think that this problem is better addressed by the measures that we have already put in place. We have the digital markets competition regime, which is only just coming into effect. The Competition and Markets Authority could be doing much more to require the platforms to make public the algorithms which they use to promote content. And so before we go down this road, which, as I say, I think carries real jeopardy, I hope that we would instead look to use other measures that have already been put in place to ensure that reputable news providers do get the position that they deserve in search terms and search, and also the rewards attached to them.
Thank you.
And the absence of local media is a real problem in that respect. So it's going to become ever more important to promote local media. But I do want to come on lastly, because I know others want to speak to the second prong of government's policy, which is about the prominence or promotion of trusted news providers on social media. And I have to say, this does give me some considerable concern. There are lots of problems around definition.
I mean, firstly, what is news? Secondly, what does prominence mean in terms of a social media platform which which people access with their own personalised feed based on their content and their previous choices. And therefore I think there are practical difficulties around it. I know the government has already put in place the concept of recognised news publishers under the Online Safety Act, but that was a very different purpose. And the the problem I have is the idea that a government agency of some kind is going to be saying that this is a trusted news provider, and therefore this is not.
And deciding or at least seeking to influence where those appear in terms of people's choices. So I take the honourable lady's point that young people are more and more turning to social media, but I don't think this is the answer, because it looks to me like a very dangerous extension of government interference in the freedom of the press and the right to free speech. And I would also just like the assurance of the minister that there is no linkage intended to any form of regulation, and the idea that perhaps news providers might be given prominence if they accept a regulatory structure which the government wants, would be equally dangerous.
In some ways, I think that this problem is better addressed by the measures that we have already put in place. We have the digital markets competition regime, which is only just coming into effect. The Competition and Markets Authority could be doing much more to require the platforms to make public the algorithms which they use to promote content. And so before we go down this road, which, as I say, I think carries real jeopardy, I hope that we would instead look to use other measures that have already been put in place to ensure that reputable news providers do get the position that they deserve in search terms and search, and also the rewards attached to them.
Thank you.
16:42
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Thank you. It's a pleasure to see you in the chair this afternoon. So as we consider the future of terrestrial television, we must ensure that technological change does not leave people behind because for millions, especially older and lower income households, Freeview remains a vital source of television and I to myself utilise this excellent service. Any transition from terrestrial broadcasting must be gradual and inclusive, as many people still lack reliable broadband or easy access to digital services.
Public service broadcasting must remain universally accessible and as ministers consider the future of television distribution, I urge them to ensure that no household is excluded from trusted news, information and entertainment simply because of where they live or what they can afford. There are very few pieces of national infrastructure that prove their value more clearly than terrestrial television during an emergency, and we do not have to imagine what national resilience crisis looks like.
We just lived through it last month, when in my constituency, the devastating Stourbridge wildfires ripped through neighbourhoods, destroying 19 homes, tearing down power infrastructure. Entire streets instantly cut off rail lines stopped, power grids buckled and families were forced to watch their own neighbourhoods burn on television from the evacuation centre. In those critical hours, when broadband and mobile networks face severe pressure and outages, traditional terrestrial broadcast was not a relic of the past. It was a lifeline and, unlike internet based networks, broadcast 2040 plus does not rely on broadband infrastructure.
It remains a universal and resilient means of communication when other systems may fail. A short sighted internet only switch off by 2034 ignores the reality of the climate and infrastructure risks, and I believe we must formally integrate terrestrial broadcasting into our national risk assessments and secure its future into the 2040s and beyond. Because true national resilience means ensuring that when disaster does strike, every single household remains connected to vital life saving information. So as television evolves, can ministers assure the House that the Public Broadcasting Service will remain free and universally accessible to all and protect the transmission network to ensure that if the lights do go out, broadcasting can stay on.
Thank you.
Public service broadcasting must remain universally accessible and as ministers consider the future of television distribution, I urge them to ensure that no household is excluded from trusted news, information and entertainment simply because of where they live or what they can afford. There are very few pieces of national infrastructure that prove their value more clearly than terrestrial television during an emergency, and we do not have to imagine what national resilience crisis looks like.
We just lived through it last month, when in my constituency, the devastating Stourbridge wildfires ripped through neighbourhoods, destroying 19 homes, tearing down power infrastructure. Entire streets instantly cut off rail lines stopped, power grids buckled and families were forced to watch their own neighbourhoods burn on television from the evacuation centre. In those critical hours, when broadband and mobile networks face severe pressure and outages, traditional terrestrial broadcast was not a relic of the past. It was a lifeline and, unlike internet based networks, broadcast 2040 plus does not rely on broadband infrastructure.
It remains a universal and resilient means of communication when other systems may fail. A short sighted internet only switch off by 2034 ignores the reality of the climate and infrastructure risks, and I believe we must formally integrate terrestrial broadcasting into our national risk assessments and secure its future into the 2040s and beyond. Because true national resilience means ensuring that when disaster does strike, every single household remains connected to vital life saving information. So as television evolves, can ministers assure the House that the Public Broadcasting Service will remain free and universally accessible to all and protect the transmission network to ensure that if the lights do go out, broadcasting can stay on.
Thank you.
16:45
16:45
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Doctor Alan Kahn. And may I refer honourable members to my Register of Members interests and also congratulate my right hon. Friend the member for Maldon for securing today's debate. And as always, actually, we agree on virtually everything, so I won't repeat many of the things he said. And I'm also in broad agreement with the government's goals and with much of the Green Paper.
But there's two areas of concern , similarly to my right hon. Friend that I do have. First, with the dynamics and the practicalities of the future of television distribution in terms of the switch off of digital terrestrial television, or DTT, most frequently through Freeview, that's going to take place either in 2034 or 2044. And it could have a profound impact, particularly on remote and rural communities such as parts of my constituency and Droitwich and Evesham.
And secondly, that thorny issue of prominence, again, noble ambition to counter misinformation and, of course, make sure that trustworthy, trustworthy news is more accessible and discoverable. But it raises the important question about what exactly do we mean by trusted? Who decides what qualifies and how will such a system be enforced? So on the first of these points, the government has made it clear that DTT digital terrestrial television switch off is coming. The question, therefore, is not simply whether it will happen, but how the transition will protect the vulnerable users and those who risk being digitally excluded notwithstanding.
And I won't repeat them all the positive reasons for the change outlined by my right hon. Friend some moments ago. But we have seen, and the honourable lady made this point, that in recent times of trouble and storms and fires, of course, it was vitally important that we had these services, particularly when, of course, other forms of media and of course, broadband, mobile and so on may be switched off. So there's a security aspect to this debate as well.
And the prominent media trade body Radiocentre has highlighted the potential impact of DTT switch off on radio transmission costs without appropriate financial mitigation. This could put services, local coverage and listener choice at risk. Because commercial radio shares much of the same transmission infrastructure as DTT. And if DTT closes, costs that are currently shared between television and radio could instead be transferred to radio broadcasters, and that could create significant new cost burden from 2035 onwards, potentially increasing transmission costs by more than 50%.
So this is deeply concerning. Again, particularly in rural communities. Many rural households still face unreliable broadband infrastructure, while others, particularly elderly households and those on lower incomes, may struggle to afford the internet. Contacts required to replace free to air television. So we must not create a situation where people who have relied on television for decades find themselves unable to access news, entertainment and importantly, essential public information. The government must adopt a genuine rural proofing approach to this transition so that no community and no generation is left behind.
And on a related matter, the effects of this wider shift are already being felt, including in and around my constituency. The iconic Droitwich transmitter station in Wychbold closed its longwave services in June this year, and I was disappointed that Historic England could not list the station. But furthermore, there are security aspects in retaining longwave capacity. It's very difficult to block analogue radio signals, or at least much more difficult to do so than its internet equivalents, and longwave transmissions have shown their usefulness in times of crisis and in future wartime scenarios.
The UK may be thankful to have retained the infrastructure required to broadcast to the nation and beyond over distances of hundreds of miles. And then we come to the issue of prominence, and the Green Paper proposes new approaches to make trusted news easier to find on social media, and to make public service media content more prominent on third party platforms. The policy objectives here are clear they are noble. But as always, the devil is in the detail.
As my honourable. My right hon. Friend said earlier, there are concerns here about the way that this is executed and concerns about that vital protection of things that we hold dear, such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press and the ability of the press to be able to hold us to account as politicians. So what we've got to do here is make sure that we strike the right balance between ensuring people can access reliable information and protecting the fundamental freedoms that underpin our democracy.
We must be very careful not to drift towards a society in which free speech is constrained, open and honest, debate is stifled and the exchange of new ideas is discouraged, and the government must therefore ensure that its definition of trusted does not become a proxy for government approved content. There have been, and indeed still are, authoritarian regimes around the world where such an approach has been adopted to media regulation. I do not admire such regimes or such strategies, and therefore, whilst I recognise that a consultation is ongoing, I would appreciate the Minister's responses to those issues in his response.
Thank you.
But there's two areas of concern , similarly to my right hon. Friend that I do have. First, with the dynamics and the practicalities of the future of television distribution in terms of the switch off of digital terrestrial television, or DTT, most frequently through Freeview, that's going to take place either in 2034 or 2044. And it could have a profound impact, particularly on remote and rural communities such as parts of my constituency and Droitwich and Evesham.
And secondly, that thorny issue of prominence, again, noble ambition to counter misinformation and, of course, make sure that trustworthy, trustworthy news is more accessible and discoverable. But it raises the important question about what exactly do we mean by trusted? Who decides what qualifies and how will such a system be enforced? So on the first of these points, the government has made it clear that DTT digital terrestrial television switch off is coming. The question, therefore, is not simply whether it will happen, but how the transition will protect the vulnerable users and those who risk being digitally excluded notwithstanding.
And I won't repeat them all the positive reasons for the change outlined by my right hon. Friend some moments ago. But we have seen, and the honourable lady made this point, that in recent times of trouble and storms and fires, of course, it was vitally important that we had these services, particularly when, of course, other forms of media and of course, broadband, mobile and so on may be switched off. So there's a security aspect to this debate as well.
And the prominent media trade body Radiocentre has highlighted the potential impact of DTT switch off on radio transmission costs without appropriate financial mitigation. This could put services, local coverage and listener choice at risk. Because commercial radio shares much of the same transmission infrastructure as DTT. And if DTT closes, costs that are currently shared between television and radio could instead be transferred to radio broadcasters, and that could create significant new cost burden from 2035 onwards, potentially increasing transmission costs by more than 50%.
So this is deeply concerning. Again, particularly in rural communities. Many rural households still face unreliable broadband infrastructure, while others, particularly elderly households and those on lower incomes, may struggle to afford the internet. Contacts required to replace free to air television. So we must not create a situation where people who have relied on television for decades find themselves unable to access news, entertainment and importantly, essential public information. The government must adopt a genuine rural proofing approach to this transition so that no community and no generation is left behind.
And on a related matter, the effects of this wider shift are already being felt, including in and around my constituency. The iconic Droitwich transmitter station in Wychbold closed its longwave services in June this year, and I was disappointed that Historic England could not list the station. But furthermore, there are security aspects in retaining longwave capacity. It's very difficult to block analogue radio signals, or at least much more difficult to do so than its internet equivalents, and longwave transmissions have shown their usefulness in times of crisis and in future wartime scenarios.
The UK may be thankful to have retained the infrastructure required to broadcast to the nation and beyond over distances of hundreds of miles. And then we come to the issue of prominence, and the Green Paper proposes new approaches to make trusted news easier to find on social media, and to make public service media content more prominent on third party platforms. The policy objectives here are clear they are noble. But as always, the devil is in the detail.
As my honourable. My right hon. Friend said earlier, there are concerns here about the way that this is executed and concerns about that vital protection of things that we hold dear, such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press and the ability of the press to be able to hold us to account as politicians. So what we've got to do here is make sure that we strike the right balance between ensuring people can access reliable information and protecting the fundamental freedoms that underpin our democracy.
We must be very careful not to drift towards a society in which free speech is constrained, open and honest, debate is stifled and the exchange of new ideas is discouraged, and the government must therefore ensure that its definition of trusted does not become a proxy for government approved content. There have been, and indeed still are, authoritarian regimes around the world where such an approach has been adopted to media regulation. I do not admire such regimes or such strategies, and therefore, whilst I recognise that a consultation is ongoing, I would appreciate the Minister's responses to those issues in his response.
Thank you.
16:50
16:50
16:50
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
your chairmanship, and I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon for his pertinent opening comments. He said a lot of the things I was going to say, so I'll just keep my comments as brief as possible. I do very much welcome the government's intention to tackle misinformation, but I think a crucial question that now follows is who will actually decide what is trustworthy? Because it can't be ministers and it certainly can't be the tech giants.
So first off, I asked the minister to consider an independent accreditation scheme based on the Press Council of Ireland model, with an independent chair and representation from journalists, industry and civil society protected by legislation but independent, crucially of government. And to be clear, I think trustworthy news has to mean more than public service broadcasting. That is a central pillar. Of course it is, but it must include other outlets, independent publications, freelance journalists who meet recognized standards, and the government should support prominence for trustworthy news online.
But this prominence must not become de ranking by another name for journalists who challenge those in power and alongside regulation. We've also critically got to have education. So will the minister commit to a nationwide, properly funded media literacy program and restore the Strategic Priorities Grant for journalism education, as urged by the National Council for the Training of Journalists. We've got to have stronger duties on the platforms themselves, as we've heard from colleagues today.
And one option, of course, which is supported by the National Union of Journalists, of which I'm a chair of their parliamentary group, is the Cairncross Review's proposed news quality obligation. So will the minister consider introducing stronger obligations on those technology companies that are amplifying harmful and misleading content, and will the minister ensure Ofcom's standards apply to online content, including video on demand? And now we know that social media is dangerously fragmenting our information environment.
So it's clear that public service broadcasting matters more now than ever. The BBC and other public service broadcasters provide journalism, investigation, culture and local coverage on crucial issues in the public interest that often commercial operators don't consider profitable. Yet. Sadly, at the moment, the BBC is cutting hundreds of jobs and programmes. So how can we honestly claim to be strengthening our information environment whilst allowing the capacity to produce trusted journalism to be cut away? So I've got some key questions that I'm pretty sure the minister's already working on.
Will the government use the charter renewal process to secure sustainable funding for the BBC? Will he intervene to protect jobs and programmes that are now under threat? And if the government believes that over 75 should receive free TV licences, as I do personally, will it fund those licences directly rather than making the BBC pay? And crucially, at a time when disinformation crosses borders in seconds, will the government restore full funding to the BBC World Service? Now we've also got to address the issue of media ownership.
So will the government strengthen ownership rules and invest in local public service journalism, as proposed in the new jobs Recovery Plan? And finally, as has been made quite articulately by colleagues today, we must protect access to television. We know that Freeview at the moment reaches 99% of the population, and a premature switch to IPTV risks excluding older people, disabled people and rural communities with poor connectivity. So will the minister reject any Freeview switch off timetable until free to air? Public service broadcasting is universally accessible and free at the point of distribution.
Now, I very much welcome today's debate, and I hope that the government can address the issues that are raised, because getting this right means truly creating an information environment that serves our communities and serves democracy, not a Wild West one that serves whoever has the biggest algorithm or the deepest pockets or the loudest voice. Thank you.
So first off, I asked the minister to consider an independent accreditation scheme based on the Press Council of Ireland model, with an independent chair and representation from journalists, industry and civil society protected by legislation but independent, crucially of government. And to be clear, I think trustworthy news has to mean more than public service broadcasting. That is a central pillar. Of course it is, but it must include other outlets, independent publications, freelance journalists who meet recognized standards, and the government should support prominence for trustworthy news online.
But this prominence must not become de ranking by another name for journalists who challenge those in power and alongside regulation. We've also critically got to have education. So will the minister commit to a nationwide, properly funded media literacy program and restore the Strategic Priorities Grant for journalism education, as urged by the National Council for the Training of Journalists. We've got to have stronger duties on the platforms themselves, as we've heard from colleagues today.
And one option, of course, which is supported by the National Union of Journalists, of which I'm a chair of their parliamentary group, is the Cairncross Review's proposed news quality obligation. So will the minister consider introducing stronger obligations on those technology companies that are amplifying harmful and misleading content, and will the minister ensure Ofcom's standards apply to online content, including video on demand? And now we know that social media is dangerously fragmenting our information environment.
So it's clear that public service broadcasting matters more now than ever. The BBC and other public service broadcasters provide journalism, investigation, culture and local coverage on crucial issues in the public interest that often commercial operators don't consider profitable. Yet. Sadly, at the moment, the BBC is cutting hundreds of jobs and programmes. So how can we honestly claim to be strengthening our information environment whilst allowing the capacity to produce trusted journalism to be cut away? So I've got some key questions that I'm pretty sure the minister's already working on.
Will the government use the charter renewal process to secure sustainable funding for the BBC? Will he intervene to protect jobs and programmes that are now under threat? And if the government believes that over 75 should receive free TV licences, as I do personally, will it fund those licences directly rather than making the BBC pay? And crucially, at a time when disinformation crosses borders in seconds, will the government restore full funding to the BBC World Service? Now we've also got to address the issue of media ownership.
So will the government strengthen ownership rules and invest in local public service journalism, as proposed in the new jobs Recovery Plan? And finally, as has been made quite articulately by colleagues today, we must protect access to television. We know that Freeview at the moment reaches 99% of the population, and a premature switch to IPTV risks excluding older people, disabled people and rural communities with poor connectivity. So will the minister reject any Freeview switch off timetable until free to air? Public service broadcasting is universally accessible and free at the point of distribution.
Now, I very much welcome today's debate, and I hope that the government can address the issues that are raised, because getting this right means truly creating an information environment that serves our communities and serves democracy, not a Wild West one that serves whoever has the biggest algorithm or the deepest pockets or the loudest voice. Thank you.
16:55
16:55
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Thank you. Pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Just a few words, really. I do think that the the universal accessibility is absolutely vital in this debate, and a lot of what's been said so far. I do agree with. However, I am very concerned about the switch off of free to air as it stands at this moment in time. I do recall that when I was standing for election the year I got elected in 2010, there were strong proposals to actually switch off the FM am signal around 2010.
We're 16 years down the line and long wave has just been switched off, and my right hon. Friend's comments are certainly worth. Important to bear in mind about losing the ability to do a long wave broadcast. But we keep talking about the technology, moving along and being able to access it on cables and internet. But that's never going to be true for things like people who live on canal boats, and with digital television, you literally can these days just stick a square reel up and point it in roughly the right direction, and you will get your television channels.
My wife and I took holidays in a canal boat, and we've done it in a campervan, and we've been able to do that now. Campervan, slightly different, probably used more for leisure purposes. But there are people who live on canal boats and by definition, how are they going to get an internet connection to them? Now technology may move on, but what worries me is that in order to say, well, we can solve this problem and solve that problem, you're going to have to buy something.
You're going to have to rent something you're going to have in some way or another. Enter into a contract to receive something you currently get for free. Now, I think the BBC is one of the most valuable institutions that this country has in being able to be a public service broadcaster, and I do think it loses its way at times when chasing ratings and saying it has to be in competition to some of the things that only a public service broadcaster can deliver.
But if you say that you're going to have to pay something or another to be able to get television, then surely that completely destroys a licence fee that you've got only going to be taxed to watch it, but then we're going to charge you again to actually be able to thing you're paying a tax on. It has to maintain a free to air service. And however that is delivered. And I'm not sure that technology is there yet.
But once that technology is there, what's going to be vital is that you're not charged for it. The way that it moves forward. And having tried and tested technology, a lot of us went out and bought digital radios when they came on DAB radios. Most of those DAB radios are now in the bin because when they brought out Dab+ and for example, classic FM stopped broadcasting on DAB, and in fact, my previous car did not have Dab+.
And I found myself going back to FM to be able to listen to it. And, you know, I'm sure we all had certain sets of digital radios that now really don't pick up many channels at all. So the industry actually changing what you could receive on having invested already in the new equipment is also something that's going to have to be looked at. But I do have a lot of people who live on canal boats in my constituency.
I'm sure a lot of other constituencies do, and I think it's these areas that we have to give careful consideration to, because where there isn't a solid land point of contact permanently, then how simply are we going to make sure that people can receive the things that they currently get and that they pay a licence fee for and, and the licence fees, a licence fee? It's not a television licence, it is a licence fee because it does the radio broadcast as well.
But if it slowly starts to get to the point where I'm already paying for this and I'm not going to pay for that, it removes a whole host of radio as well. And I think radio is actually the most important thing that the BBC do. I actually very rarely watch television news now, because it's just a second by second diatribe of trying to fill in a gap all day long. Whereas if you listen to radio news, you actually get the news in in half an hour.
You probably get more news at the 6:00 news on Radio four than you will do in two hours on one of the other broadcasters, and you get some very sensible programs. I think it's a great pity that the world tonight is coming to an end, but actually replacing it with news from World Service may be something which is very useful, but I do think there could be some unforeseen circumstances if we're asking people to pay twice. And I think with the reputation that people have towards the television licence, they may stop paying that.
But fundamentally, I want to make sure that we don't take away the ability to even receive television when we keep considering that people may be land based and can get that connection. Thank you. Thank you.
We're 16 years down the line and long wave has just been switched off, and my right hon. Friend's comments are certainly worth. Important to bear in mind about losing the ability to do a long wave broadcast. But we keep talking about the technology, moving along and being able to access it on cables and internet. But that's never going to be true for things like people who live on canal boats, and with digital television, you literally can these days just stick a square reel up and point it in roughly the right direction, and you will get your television channels.
My wife and I took holidays in a canal boat, and we've done it in a campervan, and we've been able to do that now. Campervan, slightly different, probably used more for leisure purposes. But there are people who live on canal boats and by definition, how are they going to get an internet connection to them? Now technology may move on, but what worries me is that in order to say, well, we can solve this problem and solve that problem, you're going to have to buy something.
You're going to have to rent something you're going to have in some way or another. Enter into a contract to receive something you currently get for free. Now, I think the BBC is one of the most valuable institutions that this country has in being able to be a public service broadcaster, and I do think it loses its way at times when chasing ratings and saying it has to be in competition to some of the things that only a public service broadcaster can deliver.
But if you say that you're going to have to pay something or another to be able to get television, then surely that completely destroys a licence fee that you've got only going to be taxed to watch it, but then we're going to charge you again to actually be able to thing you're paying a tax on. It has to maintain a free to air service. And however that is delivered. And I'm not sure that technology is there yet.
But once that technology is there, what's going to be vital is that you're not charged for it. The way that it moves forward. And having tried and tested technology, a lot of us went out and bought digital radios when they came on DAB radios. Most of those DAB radios are now in the bin because when they brought out Dab+ and for example, classic FM stopped broadcasting on DAB, and in fact, my previous car did not have Dab+.
And I found myself going back to FM to be able to listen to it. And, you know, I'm sure we all had certain sets of digital radios that now really don't pick up many channels at all. So the industry actually changing what you could receive on having invested already in the new equipment is also something that's going to have to be looked at. But I do have a lot of people who live on canal boats in my constituency.
I'm sure a lot of other constituencies do, and I think it's these areas that we have to give careful consideration to, because where there isn't a solid land point of contact permanently, then how simply are we going to make sure that people can receive the things that they currently get and that they pay a licence fee for and, and the licence fees, a licence fee? It's not a television licence, it is a licence fee because it does the radio broadcast as well.
But if it slowly starts to get to the point where I'm already paying for this and I'm not going to pay for that, it removes a whole host of radio as well. And I think radio is actually the most important thing that the BBC do. I actually very rarely watch television news now, because it's just a second by second diatribe of trying to fill in a gap all day long. Whereas if you listen to radio news, you actually get the news in in half an hour.
You probably get more news at the 6:00 news on Radio four than you will do in two hours on one of the other broadcasters, and you get some very sensible programs. I think it's a great pity that the world tonight is coming to an end, but actually replacing it with news from World Service may be something which is very useful, but I do think there could be some unforeseen circumstances if we're asking people to pay twice. And I think with the reputation that people have towards the television licence, they may stop paying that.
But fundamentally, I want to make sure that we don't take away the ability to even receive television when we keep considering that people may be land based and can get that connection. Thank you. Thank you.
17:00
17:00
17:00
17:00
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
And it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I congratulate the honourable member, the Right Honourable member for Maldon, for securing this debate. Most people are turning on to on demand and streaming services to watch television and digest media content in Wales. But the shift isn't universal, with 22% of households in Wales still relying on digital terrestrial television to watch their TV, this reality of hybrid media consumption must therefore be reflected in the UK government's policy choices, or will risk exclusion.
And we can't forget that a fifth of our population are older in Wales and therefore more affected by the barriers to home internet access and those of us living in rural Wales knows that good fast speed internet service isn't always available in, especially where the average download speeds are 40% lower than the UK average. While Ofcom reports that more hard to reach households are turning to satellite connectivity, increased costs and limited availability means that this isn't an option for everyone.
Recent polling found that over half of Welsh adults, and confident that their internet connection is good enough to get rid of Freeview, improving digital inclusion and access should be a UK government priority before decisions are made to switching off digital terrestrial television. Noting these issues does not mean ignoring challenges facing our broadcasters, and these challenges are already playing out. A £9 million of cuts to BBC Cymru and really the BBC, along with ITV and S4c's SBS.
And how can you continue to be a PSB whilst facing such enormous cuts? I would therefore urge the Minister to consider S4c's call for more medium term funding through a multi year funding settlement that allows for inflation and protection from outside cuts. The switchover is a lesson on how people can be left behind when a process is rushed, and I believe that the timeline for an eventual switch off of digital TV should be context led and based on a workable plan.
But if the UK government will only consider one of two dates as part of their media Green Paper, I would urge ministers to decide on the latter switch off date of 2044, for the reasons that I've noted and support our broadcasters in the interim through long term sustainable funding so that the media content in Wales remains accessible and reflects our community's joke of all.
And we can't forget that a fifth of our population are older in Wales and therefore more affected by the barriers to home internet access and those of us living in rural Wales knows that good fast speed internet service isn't always available in, especially where the average download speeds are 40% lower than the UK average. While Ofcom reports that more hard to reach households are turning to satellite connectivity, increased costs and limited availability means that this isn't an option for everyone.
Recent polling found that over half of Welsh adults, and confident that their internet connection is good enough to get rid of Freeview, improving digital inclusion and access should be a UK government priority before decisions are made to switching off digital terrestrial television. Noting these issues does not mean ignoring challenges facing our broadcasters, and these challenges are already playing out. A £9 million of cuts to BBC Cymru and really the BBC, along with ITV and S4c's SBS.
And how can you continue to be a PSB whilst facing such enormous cuts? I would therefore urge the Minister to consider S4c's call for more medium term funding through a multi year funding settlement that allows for inflation and protection from outside cuts. The switchover is a lesson on how people can be left behind when a process is rushed, and I believe that the timeline for an eventual switch off of digital TV should be context led and based on a workable plan.
But if the UK government will only consider one of two dates as part of their media Green Paper, I would urge ministers to decide on the latter switch off date of 2044, for the reasons that I've noted and support our broadcasters in the interim through long term sustainable funding so that the media content in Wales remains accessible and reflects our community's joke of all.
17:03
17:03
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, Doctor Allin-khan. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I would like to thank the Right Honourable member for Maldon for securing this debate. It is clear that the media landscape is changing and changing rapidly for many young people today. The first time they encounter a major news story isn't by opening a newspaper or even turning on the TV. It's when a video appears on their social media feed, selected by an algorithm that is designed to keep them watching.
Ofcom's data tells us that three quarters of 16 to 24 year olds now get their news, mainly from social media, and this represents a huge shift in how young people are understanding the world around them. And it comes with real dangers. Algorithms are necessarily designed to are not necessarily designed to inform us. They're designed with engagement in mind. And this means that for social media platforms, attention rather than accuracy is the priority.
As politicians, we know that this comes with real implications for our democracy, and I support what my hon. Friend the member for Hazel Grove said about the importance of young and new voters having access to reliable news sources. So we welcome this green Paper, which recognises the change in our media landscape. But the transformation is creating another challenge, one for our traditional broadcasters. Public service broadcasters have a vital and unique role in the UK's media landscape.
They provide trusted news, educational programming and content that brings communities together. But as audiences and advertising move online, the financial pressures on these broadcasters are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Just look at the BBC from finding out who has voted off at the round table on the traitors, to listening to the shipping forecast from tuning in to 24 over seven news coverage to watching educational content, the BBC is a quintessentially British service, loved and relied on by millions across the country, but that vital public service is under significant financial pressure, as made clear by the recent cuts to the BBC workforce and many of its much loved programmes.
Now, as a former Reuters journalist, I firmly believe in the mission of public service broadcasters like the BBC. That is one that is, that should be celebrated and protected. So it is welcome that this Green Paper recognises the importance of prominence for these unique services. But what is missing is a clear commitment to protecting the BBC itself, its independence, its universal availability and its ability to remain a properly resourced public service broadcaster.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for a permanent BBC charter to enshrine the BBC's core mission and mandate for generations to come. So does the government agree that the core principles of the BBC must be protected in a permanent charter? Another key matter for us in this Green Paper is the government's proposed transition away from digital terrestrial television. The Green Paper sets out two possible deadlines 20, 34 or 44 for switching off Freeview, with digital terrestrial television guaranteed only until the end of 2034.
And on this, we Liberal Democrats completely disagree with the mover of this debate. I represent a very rural constituency, and I can tell the House that it is the most reliable and importantly, free way. People in my constituency and across the UK watch television. 12.9 million people homes use terrestrial television today, including around 2.6 million that rely on it exclusively. In fact, over a quarter of all television viewing in the United Kingdom last year was through Freeview Digital Terrestrial Television, and it is the single most popular way for viewers to access programming.
It disproportionately serves older people, people on lower incomes and people in rural areas precisely the groups least likely to have reliable broadband. Now, the honourable member for Wetherby and Easingwold focused on people who live in canal boats, but there are hundreds of thousands of homes across this country, thousands of them in my own constituency who still do not have a reliable Wi-Fi connection. Today, with 6% of adults in the UK lacking any home internet access at all, and the honourable member for Stourbridge made an extremely valuable point about the need for terrestrial TV.
When communicators and communities are navigating any kind of storms, floods or other natural disasters, I will give way.
Ofcom's data tells us that three quarters of 16 to 24 year olds now get their news, mainly from social media, and this represents a huge shift in how young people are understanding the world around them. And it comes with real dangers. Algorithms are necessarily designed to are not necessarily designed to inform us. They're designed with engagement in mind. And this means that for social media platforms, attention rather than accuracy is the priority.
As politicians, we know that this comes with real implications for our democracy, and I support what my hon. Friend the member for Hazel Grove said about the importance of young and new voters having access to reliable news sources. So we welcome this green Paper, which recognises the change in our media landscape. But the transformation is creating another challenge, one for our traditional broadcasters. Public service broadcasters have a vital and unique role in the UK's media landscape.
They provide trusted news, educational programming and content that brings communities together. But as audiences and advertising move online, the financial pressures on these broadcasters are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Just look at the BBC from finding out who has voted off at the round table on the traitors, to listening to the shipping forecast from tuning in to 24 over seven news coverage to watching educational content, the BBC is a quintessentially British service, loved and relied on by millions across the country, but that vital public service is under significant financial pressure, as made clear by the recent cuts to the BBC workforce and many of its much loved programmes.
Now, as a former Reuters journalist, I firmly believe in the mission of public service broadcasters like the BBC. That is one that is, that should be celebrated and protected. So it is welcome that this Green Paper recognises the importance of prominence for these unique services. But what is missing is a clear commitment to protecting the BBC itself, its independence, its universal availability and its ability to remain a properly resourced public service broadcaster.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for a permanent BBC charter to enshrine the BBC's core mission and mandate for generations to come. So does the government agree that the core principles of the BBC must be protected in a permanent charter? Another key matter for us in this Green Paper is the government's proposed transition away from digital terrestrial television. The Green Paper sets out two possible deadlines 20, 34 or 44 for switching off Freeview, with digital terrestrial television guaranteed only until the end of 2034.
And on this, we Liberal Democrats completely disagree with the mover of this debate. I represent a very rural constituency, and I can tell the House that it is the most reliable and importantly, free way. People in my constituency and across the UK watch television. 12.9 million people homes use terrestrial television today, including around 2.6 million that rely on it exclusively. In fact, over a quarter of all television viewing in the United Kingdom last year was through Freeview Digital Terrestrial Television, and it is the single most popular way for viewers to access programming.
It disproportionately serves older people, people on lower incomes and people in rural areas precisely the groups least likely to have reliable broadband. Now, the honourable member for Wetherby and Easingwold focused on people who live in canal boats, but there are hundreds of thousands of homes across this country, thousands of them in my own constituency who still do not have a reliable Wi-Fi connection. Today, with 6% of adults in the UK lacking any home internet access at all, and the honourable member for Stourbridge made an extremely valuable point about the need for terrestrial TV.
When communicators and communities are navigating any kind of storms, floods or other natural disasters, I will give way.
17:07
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I thank the honourable lady for giving way in my Camborne-redruth and Hayle constituency. More than a quarter of households fail to receive speeds of more than 30MB per second, and 11 of our 15 local areas rank amongst the worst, performing 10% nationally. Does the member. Does she agree with me, therefore, that a delay to the switch off would afford remote coastal households enough time to adapt?
17:07
17:07
17:07
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
absolutely agree with the honourable member, and I'm deeply concerned about what it means for some of us in the rural South West who we know that there are areas, villages, that will never get fast broadband. So this is deeply concerning. Setting a switch off date without first closing this gap risks cutting off the communities the Green Paper says it wants to protect, and we are also concerned by the cost implications on commercial radio. Radio, which, if it is lost, will reduce the plurality in our media landscape.
If we move to an internet only model before universal broadband is genuinely in place, we do not just inconvenience households, we risk isolating them from local democracy, local information and local culture altogether. For my constituents, that is the difference between staying connected to what is happening in their community and being cut off from it entirely. We cannot ask people to give up a service that works today in exchange for a promise of connectivity that has not yet arrived.
We've already seen the government water down their commitment on superfast broadband. It was initially promised that there would be next generation generation, gigabit broadband for every home by 2030. But at the spending review in June last year, the government changed their target to 99% of premises to have access to a gigabit capable connection by 2032. So it's getting slower. Already, contracts delivering superfast broadband have been scaled back in the past after only those areas which were easiest to reach were connected.
The minister will therefore have to forgive me for being less than confident that we will have universal broadband by the deadline of 2034. I therefore ask the Minister, can you confirm that the government will hold off any Freeview switch off until every household, including those in the hard to reach rural constituencies like mine, has reliable Wi-Fi in place? Can you give my constituents that promise today?
If we move to an internet only model before universal broadband is genuinely in place, we do not just inconvenience households, we risk isolating them from local democracy, local information and local culture altogether. For my constituents, that is the difference between staying connected to what is happening in their community and being cut off from it entirely. We cannot ask people to give up a service that works today in exchange for a promise of connectivity that has not yet arrived.
We've already seen the government water down their commitment on superfast broadband. It was initially promised that there would be next generation generation, gigabit broadband for every home by 2030. But at the spending review in June last year, the government changed their target to 99% of premises to have access to a gigabit capable connection by 2032. So it's getting slower. Already, contracts delivering superfast broadband have been scaled back in the past after only those areas which were easiest to reach were connected.
The minister will therefore have to forgive me for being less than confident that we will have universal broadband by the deadline of 2034. I therefore ask the Minister, can you confirm that the government will hold off any Freeview switch off until every household, including those in the hard to reach rural constituencies like mine, has reliable Wi-Fi in place? Can you give my constituents that promise today?
17:09
17:09
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
you very much, Doctor Ali Khan, and I thank my right hon. Friend for Maldon for bringing this debate and setting out the issues in his typically informed way, based on his expertise and for all other colleagues who have contributed and the way we we consume broadcast media is moving from the traditional channels to a huge amount of content available on demand and on video streaming platforms. And I was struck reading the minister's introduction, where he referred to watching Noel's House party on a Saturday with his family.
And I did the same, but that would be totally alien to many young people today, which is reflected in the data that shows that YouTube was the most watched service in the country last year, seen by more people every month than all of the BBC channels combined. And video streaming services account for three quarters of all video time for audiences aged 16 to 24. So the Green Paper is right to seek to grapple with some of the questions and implications.
Let me begin with an area where there is common cause which hasn't been mentioned, namely the proposals on listed events and adding on demand rights to the free to air listed sports regime, which we strongly support. However, one of the most controversial areas which has been covered in the debate are the plans to impose new regulations to make trustworthy news providers more easily discoverable on social media platforms, and this is, and may well be well intentioned, but it is also deeply problematic and could undermine the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the free society that we enjoy.
Is the government really saying that the state will be the arbiter of what is trustworthy? Where would that leave channels such as GB news, which ministers and Right Honourable and honourable members have criticised and refused to appear on media organisations would only benefit from the prominence regime if they, reprieved, received approval from the state, effectively a state body deciding what journalism people see. It would also have the impact of reducing the visibility for independent content creators, community journalists and new media voices, thus undermining a free press.
Howard. Trustworthy news be defined. The paper suggests building on the recognised news publisher definition that covers 1000 titles so, so broad to be meaningless. Of course, many think that this is simply an attempt to impose press regulation by the back door. The press regulation panel is explicit that only those news publishers that are part of an approved regulator should benefit. That would be completely unacceptable. I will give way.
And I did the same, but that would be totally alien to many young people today, which is reflected in the data that shows that YouTube was the most watched service in the country last year, seen by more people every month than all of the BBC channels combined. And video streaming services account for three quarters of all video time for audiences aged 16 to 24. So the Green Paper is right to seek to grapple with some of the questions and implications.
Let me begin with an area where there is common cause which hasn't been mentioned, namely the proposals on listed events and adding on demand rights to the free to air listed sports regime, which we strongly support. However, one of the most controversial areas which has been covered in the debate are the plans to impose new regulations to make trustworthy news providers more easily discoverable on social media platforms, and this is, and may well be well intentioned, but it is also deeply problematic and could undermine the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the free society that we enjoy.
Is the government really saying that the state will be the arbiter of what is trustworthy? Where would that leave channels such as GB news, which ministers and Right Honourable and honourable members have criticised and refused to appear on media organisations would only benefit from the prominence regime if they, reprieved, received approval from the state, effectively a state body deciding what journalism people see. It would also have the impact of reducing the visibility for independent content creators, community journalists and new media voices, thus undermining a free press.
Howard. Trustworthy news be defined. The paper suggests building on the recognised news publisher definition that covers 1000 titles so, so broad to be meaningless. Of course, many think that this is simply an attempt to impose press regulation by the back door. The press regulation panel is explicit that only those news publishers that are part of an approved regulator should benefit. That would be completely unacceptable. I will give way.
17:12
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Just on that note, does my hon. Friend make that link? As I was saying about the licence fee, that the reason we have a licence fee in place is not paid by general taxation is so that the BBC does not fear decisions that ministers may make. And is this really a game putting into a bill something that has been clear. We want to renew the licence fee so the government. But at the same time, we'll put something in place that takes away the very reason why you would put a licence fee in place rather than taxation.
17:13
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point around the basis of the licence fee, and the independence of that is there to provide. Ministers need to focus on consumers and citizens. Platforms are built around personalisation individuals determining the sources of content that they trust and want to access. User controls exist. Labelling already exists, and the paper refers to misinformation and disinformation around the horrific Southport killings, in part to justify these proposals.
However, we should note the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation said that the information released by authorities after those appalling attacks was inadequate and led to those who wanted to spread disinformation to be able to do so, and police forces now share more information as a result. And when there are major incidents, people tend to turn to more traditional news outlets, whether local papers, radio stations or public service media. More broadly, Ofcom found that over three quarters of people think it's important to check different sources.
If you're unsure whether a news story is true, so that provides some reassurance to the issue, briefly give way.
However, we should note the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation said that the information released by authorities after those appalling attacks was inadequate and led to those who wanted to spread disinformation to be able to do so, and police forces now share more information as a result. And when there are major incidents, people tend to turn to more traditional news outlets, whether local papers, radio stations or public service media. More broadly, Ofcom found that over three quarters of people think it's important to check different sources.
If you're unsure whether a news story is true, so that provides some reassurance to the issue, briefly give way.
17:14
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
Thank you very much, I apologise. I just wondered if you just touch upon this is a friendly intervention, just with regards the increasing use people make of AI generated summaries online that I'm quite concerned about, because obviously those AI salaries will rely on what we call trusted sources. I appreciate the points he's making about what defines trusted source, and these are all important questions I'm sure the minister will answer, but I'm very concerned if people more and more rely on AI summaries and not those primary trusted sources, those primary trusted sources could, in the future, no longer exist.
So would he recognise that the point he's making is important? That actually people do? Don't just rely on AI summaries to get their news.
So would he recognise that the point he's making is important? That actually people do? Don't just rely on AI summaries to get their news.
17:14
Speaker 26
-
Speaker 26
Yeah, absolutely. I think he illustrates the point that my hon. Friend made that we should be having a much longer debate and more debates about precisely those type of issues. So I hope the Minister will be able today to at least rule out any notion that to qualify for prominence, if such a scheme is put in place, a publisher would need to sign up to a state approved regulator. I come to the issue of the proposals over digital switch off from either 2034 or 2044, and the latest Barb data shows that 2.6 million households rely on terrestrial TV because they don't have broadband or internet connected TV yet.
Usage is also declining. We've heard about the pressure that puts on broadcasters using that channel to get to a declining level of households, but for many of our constituents, my constituents in north west Norfolk, older people, people on low income households and those in rural and remote areas, Freeview does remain essential. And according to the impact assessment in the white the Green Paper, by 2034, there could be 1.5 million households still reliant on traditional broadcast platforms.
So there are very serious challenges to be answered, not least proper broadband access. And the government must therefore have answers to these and have what the Secretary of State referred to as watertight plans for them. Any switch off date should be treated as conditional, setting out the tests that need to be met, and the support for all those who may otherwise be left behind. I call on the minister to provide some clarity about the timeline for taking the decision on switch off, and a commitment that vulnerable and rural communities will not be left behind.
And on the broader issue of prominence of public service media content on video platforms, chapter four of the paper states that the government's preference is for this to be subject to industry led voluntary agreements. That must be the right approach, and YouTube is already talking to public service providers on that basis, but there's no attempt in the paper to qualify any legislative costs or impact should the government go down that route. But it's very clear that transferring the concept from linear broadcast and prominence to this without imposing excessive costs will be very challenging.
So to conclude, Doctor Allin-khan, the Green Paper focuses on what is a very changing landscape and poses a series of questions. Important questions, fundamental questions that we need to spend more time considering. Thank you.
Usage is also declining. We've heard about the pressure that puts on broadcasters using that channel to get to a declining level of households, but for many of our constituents, my constituents in north west Norfolk, older people, people on low income households and those in rural and remote areas, Freeview does remain essential. And according to the impact assessment in the white the Green Paper, by 2034, there could be 1.5 million households still reliant on traditional broadcast platforms.
So there are very serious challenges to be answered, not least proper broadband access. And the government must therefore have answers to these and have what the Secretary of State referred to as watertight plans for them. Any switch off date should be treated as conditional, setting out the tests that need to be met, and the support for all those who may otherwise be left behind. I call on the minister to provide some clarity about the timeline for taking the decision on switch off, and a commitment that vulnerable and rural communities will not be left behind.
And on the broader issue of prominence of public service media content on video platforms, chapter four of the paper states that the government's preference is for this to be subject to industry led voluntary agreements. That must be the right approach, and YouTube is already talking to public service providers on that basis, but there's no attempt in the paper to qualify any legislative costs or impact should the government go down that route. But it's very clear that transferring the concept from linear broadcast and prominence to this without imposing excessive costs will be very challenging.
So to conclude, Doctor Allin-khan, the Green Paper focuses on what is a very changing landscape and poses a series of questions. Important questions, fundamental questions that we need to spend more time considering. Thank you.
17:17
17:17
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Thank you very much indeed. Doctor Allen, great to see you in the chair. I think the first time I've done a debate with you in the chair. So congratulations and congratulations to the new Shadow Minister as well on his first visit to Westminster Hall. I understand given since his appointment and a good visit has been as well and great to have this debate. And can I firstly congratulate my right hon. Member for Maldon on securing the debate? He is right.
An hour is not enough for this debate, but I am sure that these issues will come back to and a number of occasions. And actually, the reason we have a green paper process, of course, as he knows, is to look at these big issues in terms of the principles and then work out the detail in terms of asking people what they think should be the best way to deliver it. I know he's very knowledgeable about these issues and will continue to bring that knowledge and experience to those in this chamber.
He did say the Green Paper has some controversial proposals. I am not sure that they're necessarily controversial there. There are big questions of which we have to answer in a very changing media environment. And of course, they sit alongside a number of other big issues that the government is currently timetabled, including the BBC charter, which I will come on to in a few moments time, because the BBC charter renewal, the Green Paper and other issues on online safety are all coming together in terms of this new environment and the and the blurring between what is television and what are other issues.
Let me just set the scene a little bit of why we're doing this. When functioning effectively, our media in this country provides the foundation of a cohesive country and a very healthy democracy in which we would all agree as the ability to establish shared understanding and shared facts and shared experiences. And this is crucial for helping people trust and understand one another and communities to be held together. However, we know that the media is facing huge challenges and as we set out in the Green Paper, television is undergoing a profound transformation, having moved from a system of limited broadcast channels when we were growing up, as he suggests, to an environment of content everywhere.
For everyone with the largest players are the global streaming services, video sharing platforms and social media companies, our domestic broadcasters of which they are the best in the world, including our public service media providers, are battling to be seen in an increasingly competitive and fragmented market, where audiences are seeking their entertainment and news. People, as we know, are increasingly accessing news online, particularly the younger the young, rather than through more regulated spaces like their TV sets. And this gives that disparity between someone sitting in front of a piece of content in front of the television means that it is regulated.
Some someone watching the same content or similar content online. It's not regulated. And these are the kinds of big issues that the Green Paper are trying to trying to draw out. This is weakening the ability of trustworthy news providers to reach audiences and shape and inform public debate. And the government believes that we need to do more to adequately equip younger generations with access to high quality media. This is why we are acting in the light of these challenges.
This watch, this space green Paper has consulted on a variety of proposals to ensure that media and television in particular, can continue to play it's vitally important role in our society and our democracy. By ensuring high quality UK content and trustworthy news remains accessible and sustainable for the next generation and beyond. I should also welcome this debate alongside many thousands of responses to the consultation. I believe many tens of thousands we have received to ensure that every measure is scrutinised properly, to make sure that it is robust and forward looking as possible.
So if I can come to some of those particular issues, if I can, Doctor Alan Khan, let me just start with the issue of prominence. First of all, it was raised by the honourable member for Maldon. Public service media content needs to be easy to find on platforms on which people watch TV or TV like content. Therefore, the Green Paper examines the need for increased discoverability on third party platforms such as video sharing platforms. The government has been very clear that it is.
Our strong preference remains an industry led voluntary agreement to achieve this in a sustainable and robust way that satisfies all parties, and I pay tribute in particular to YouTube for the way in which they have engaged with this. However, should those partnerships not go far enough in delivering our objectives, we will need to consider legislating. The shadow minister said that content on YouTube is delivered by the user or by user preference. It is not really. It is delivered by the algorithm.
So what is being delivered to users is being fed to them by whatever the algorithm suggests it should. So if it was purely user driven, then that would deal with the issue of prominence because people would be looking for the stuff in which they wanted to see. So I'm very happy to give way.
An hour is not enough for this debate, but I am sure that these issues will come back to and a number of occasions. And actually, the reason we have a green paper process, of course, as he knows, is to look at these big issues in terms of the principles and then work out the detail in terms of asking people what they think should be the best way to deliver it. I know he's very knowledgeable about these issues and will continue to bring that knowledge and experience to those in this chamber.
He did say the Green Paper has some controversial proposals. I am not sure that they're necessarily controversial there. There are big questions of which we have to answer in a very changing media environment. And of course, they sit alongside a number of other big issues that the government is currently timetabled, including the BBC charter, which I will come on to in a few moments time, because the BBC charter renewal, the Green Paper and other issues on online safety are all coming together in terms of this new environment and the and the blurring between what is television and what are other issues.
Let me just set the scene a little bit of why we're doing this. When functioning effectively, our media in this country provides the foundation of a cohesive country and a very healthy democracy in which we would all agree as the ability to establish shared understanding and shared facts and shared experiences. And this is crucial for helping people trust and understand one another and communities to be held together. However, we know that the media is facing huge challenges and as we set out in the Green Paper, television is undergoing a profound transformation, having moved from a system of limited broadcast channels when we were growing up, as he suggests, to an environment of content everywhere.
For everyone with the largest players are the global streaming services, video sharing platforms and social media companies, our domestic broadcasters of which they are the best in the world, including our public service media providers, are battling to be seen in an increasingly competitive and fragmented market, where audiences are seeking their entertainment and news. People, as we know, are increasingly accessing news online, particularly the younger the young, rather than through more regulated spaces like their TV sets. And this gives that disparity between someone sitting in front of a piece of content in front of the television means that it is regulated.
Some someone watching the same content or similar content online. It's not regulated. And these are the kinds of big issues that the Green Paper are trying to trying to draw out. This is weakening the ability of trustworthy news providers to reach audiences and shape and inform public debate. And the government believes that we need to do more to adequately equip younger generations with access to high quality media. This is why we are acting in the light of these challenges.
This watch, this space green Paper has consulted on a variety of proposals to ensure that media and television in particular, can continue to play it's vitally important role in our society and our democracy. By ensuring high quality UK content and trustworthy news remains accessible and sustainable for the next generation and beyond. I should also welcome this debate alongside many thousands of responses to the consultation. I believe many tens of thousands we have received to ensure that every measure is scrutinised properly, to make sure that it is robust and forward looking as possible.
So if I can come to some of those particular issues, if I can, Doctor Alan Khan, let me just start with the issue of prominence. First of all, it was raised by the honourable member for Maldon. Public service media content needs to be easy to find on platforms on which people watch TV or TV like content. Therefore, the Green Paper examines the need for increased discoverability on third party platforms such as video sharing platforms. The government has been very clear that it is.
Our strong preference remains an industry led voluntary agreement to achieve this in a sustainable and robust way that satisfies all parties, and I pay tribute in particular to YouTube for the way in which they have engaged with this. However, should those partnerships not go far enough in delivering our objectives, we will need to consider legislating. The shadow minister said that content on YouTube is delivered by the user or by user preference. It is not really. It is delivered by the algorithm.
So what is being delivered to users is being fed to them by whatever the algorithm suggests it should. So if it was purely user driven, then that would deal with the issue of prominence because people would be looking for the stuff in which they wanted to see. So I'm very happy to give way.
17:21
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
He's making an important point on on prominence, something that I completely agree with. My question to him is quite simple. This, of course, is a problem that every nation around the world is grappling with. And we have the BBC, which is which is a phenomenal and unique achievement. But I wonder if he's looked at other jurisdictions, other countries to gather international best practice, because every nation is dealing with the fact that all of our media is now taking place on platforms mostly owned by big American tech firms.
17:22
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
Murray. Absolutely. And the international comparisons are not there because nobody has really done this before in terms of prominence, but also in terms of other regimes. Of course, if you look at the entire online world, Australia is being the cheerleaders for under 16 social media bans and for functioning functionality changes to social media. But nobody has really looked at how in terms of the algorithms and in terms of how people are digesting their entertainment, where that's coming from.
So we would be first movers in this. And I think that's one of the key issues that we have to try and unpick, is that we want to find a UK solution for UK audiences and UK users, with essentially West Coast of American companies that are dominating the marketplace. And that is one of the key things that we are having to try and work through with this green paper and with these big issues that have been raised.
So there are various ways of improving discoverability. Let's not go into them today, but that will be looked at in the coming weeks and months as a result of the Green Paper consultation, because what we want to see is a really thriving public service media sector sector, and that will have massive spillover effects for the entirety of the rest of the economy. And I think prominence is really something that if we crack and we get right on a voluntary basis, we will not need to see in legislation the the right hon.
Member for Maldon did talk about YouTube is all user generated and not mainstream, and we shouldn't give public service media's prominence in it. I am sure that is a very strong view that he shares with others, but YouTube may once have been the preserve of cat videos and others. But it is changing. And in December 2025, YouTube had higher monthly viewing figures than the BBC for the very first time. So people are digesting it.
And I'm not quite sure if users who are digesting that content are aware of the differences between television. And I know if I sit my six year old daughter down in front of the television, that she can watch something that's regulated, heavily regulated and safe, I would never sit her down in front of YouTube and just let her watch stuff, for the simple reason that she probably shouldn't at six. But it is unregulated in that in that particular sense. Can I just very briefly talk about the BBC ? Because it does sit very clearly alongside the public service, media and prominence, and my hon.
Friend the member for Salford raised a number of issues with regards to BBC. We will have a permanent charter and that is something that we've. I think the Shadow Minister raised that as well. We will have a permanent charter. That's something that the Secretary of State has been very clear on, and that's a great outcome, I think, for the charter renewal period under 75. We have no plans to change that at the moment. It is now the preserve of the BBC to make those decisions, and they have done so and under 75 on pension Credit.
They do receive a free television licence. And as we very clearly said to the honourable lady for. That's exactly how you pronounce it. Thank you very much indeed. The charter has been very clear a commitment to supporting minority language broadcasting, including Welsh and indeed Gaelic. As you can tell from my accent, we are actively exploring ways to ensure that S4c's in particular and minority language broadcasting continues to be sustainably funded. And, of course, the key principle of the BBC renewal.
To answer the three questions on the BBC, is that sustainable funding, of which the White Paper will address this point?
So we would be first movers in this. And I think that's one of the key issues that we have to try and unpick, is that we want to find a UK solution for UK audiences and UK users, with essentially West Coast of American companies that are dominating the marketplace. And that is one of the key things that we are having to try and work through with this green paper and with these big issues that have been raised.
So there are various ways of improving discoverability. Let's not go into them today, but that will be looked at in the coming weeks and months as a result of the Green Paper consultation, because what we want to see is a really thriving public service media sector sector, and that will have massive spillover effects for the entirety of the rest of the economy. And I think prominence is really something that if we crack and we get right on a voluntary basis, we will not need to see in legislation the the right hon.
Member for Maldon did talk about YouTube is all user generated and not mainstream, and we shouldn't give public service media's prominence in it. I am sure that is a very strong view that he shares with others, but YouTube may once have been the preserve of cat videos and others. But it is changing. And in December 2025, YouTube had higher monthly viewing figures than the BBC for the very first time. So people are digesting it.
And I'm not quite sure if users who are digesting that content are aware of the differences between television. And I know if I sit my six year old daughter down in front of the television, that she can watch something that's regulated, heavily regulated and safe, I would never sit her down in front of YouTube and just let her watch stuff, for the simple reason that she probably shouldn't at six. But it is unregulated in that in that particular sense. Can I just very briefly talk about the BBC ? Because it does sit very clearly alongside the public service, media and prominence, and my hon.
Friend the member for Salford raised a number of issues with regards to BBC. We will have a permanent charter and that is something that we've. I think the Shadow Minister raised that as well. We will have a permanent charter. That's something that the Secretary of State has been very clear on, and that's a great outcome, I think, for the charter renewal period under 75. We have no plans to change that at the moment. It is now the preserve of the BBC to make those decisions, and they have done so and under 75 on pension Credit.
They do receive a free television licence. And as we very clearly said to the honourable lady for. That's exactly how you pronounce it. Thank you very much indeed. The charter has been very clear a commitment to supporting minority language broadcasting, including Welsh and indeed Gaelic. As you can tell from my accent, we are actively exploring ways to ensure that S4c's in particular and minority language broadcasting continues to be sustainably funded. And, of course, the key principle of the BBC renewal.
To answer the three questions on the BBC, is that sustainable funding, of which the White Paper will address this point?
17:25
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I thank the Minister for giving way. While the Green Paper highlights the importance of Welsh language broadcasting, it's unfortunately largely silent on Cornish language content, despite the Canucks recognition in the 2024 Media Act. So will the minister ensure that these ambitions are translated into practical opportunities for Cornish language content, so that our national minority status is properly reflected.
17:25
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
In the interest of time? I will take that as a lobby and we'll add it to the consultation responses. I wanted very briefly to deal with two big issues, because there have been raised a lot in this. Firstly, in terms of what is trustworthy news. That is what the Green Paper is trying to address. We'll come back with proposals relatively shortly, and I welcome the debate from across the chamber and then the future of television distribution.
I think we've all agreed. We've dealt with the if, because we will move from DTT to internet only television at some point in the future, we have to deal with what is the when is it 2034? Is it 2044? And I do accept the big arguments around payments. I accept the arguments around connectivity, the quality of connectivity and digital inclusion, but those. None of those should be a reason for not going forward. If we decided to go forward with 2034, it should be the beacon of which we go towards to make sure we can deliver on digital inclusion.
We can deliver on high quality broadband in every part of the country and make sure that people are included. And I do not think we should, as a government or as a Parliament or as members of Parliament representing our constituencies, accept the fact that broadband might not be good enough and therefore we should not make these decisions. I think we should use this as a key driver to make sure that we can deliver on everyone being connected and having the benefits, not just of television, but of everything else that comes with being digitally included and digitally connected.
But we have not made a decision on 2034 or 2044, which is why both dates are in the Green Paper. There were other issues raised, but in the interest of time, we will no doubt come back to this debate. The Green Paper is there closed on 31st August, so the next steps are now to process of analyzing all those responses, of which many members and their constituents have already inputted. And I thank the right hon.
Member for Maldon for bringing this forward, and I look forward to bringing further debates on the Green Paper as the process works through.
I think we've all agreed. We've dealt with the if, because we will move from DTT to internet only television at some point in the future, we have to deal with what is the when is it 2034? Is it 2044? And I do accept the big arguments around payments. I accept the arguments around connectivity, the quality of connectivity and digital inclusion, but those. None of those should be a reason for not going forward. If we decided to go forward with 2034, it should be the beacon of which we go towards to make sure we can deliver on digital inclusion.
We can deliver on high quality broadband in every part of the country and make sure that people are included. And I do not think we should, as a government or as a Parliament or as members of Parliament representing our constituencies, accept the fact that broadband might not be good enough and therefore we should not make these decisions. I think we should use this as a key driver to make sure that we can deliver on everyone being connected and having the benefits, not just of television, but of everything else that comes with being digitally included and digitally connected.
But we have not made a decision on 2034 or 2044, which is why both dates are in the Green Paper. There were other issues raised, but in the interest of time, we will no doubt come back to this debate. The Green Paper is there closed on 31st August, so the next steps are now to process of analyzing all those responses, of which many members and their constituents have already inputted. And I thank the right hon.
Member for Maldon for bringing this forward, and I look forward to bringing further debates on the Green Paper as the process works through.
17:27
17:27
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you. Alan. Can I thank all the honourable members who have come this afternoon to participate? I mean, I think the number present indicates that this is a subject which deserved more than an hour, and I welcome the Minister's recognition of that and his suggestion that may be further opportunities to come. But I'm grateful to having this opportunity to put on record some of the points about which I have concern and look forward to .
The government's coming forward with the further proposals once the consultation has been considered.
The government's coming forward with the further proposals once the consultation has been considered.
17:28