Cuba: Humanitarian Situation
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(5 days, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Elmore
My hon. Friend is right to raise the wider humanitarian concerns. I can reassure him that, through the World Food Programme and UNICEF, the UK Government continue to provide aid. We are a major contributor to the UN’s central emergency response fund, which ensures that the Cuban people are supported through disaster response efforts, as well as efforts in relation to the latest challenges.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for securing the urgent question, and to the Minister for his response. The imposition of tariffs is a bilateral matter for the US and Cuba. We are appalled by Cuba’s record of abusing its civilians’ political, civil and human rights. The Cuban regime’s record is shameful, and we should be wary of narratives that seek to explain Cuba’s current difficulties solely through external factors. The reality is that the Cuban people have endured decades of economic stagnation, political repression and the denial of basic freedoms under a one-party communist system, and any assessment of the present situation must acknowledge the wider context.
I turn to the Minister’s response. Can he tell the House what recent discussions Ministers have had with the US Administration regarding developments in Cuba and the actions of the United States? Can he set out what engagement the Government have had with the Cuban authorities? In those discussions, have Ministers raised concerns about human rights, political prisoners and democratic freedoms, alongside the humanitarian issues?
Finally, are the Government considering a humanitarian response and, if so, how will they ensure that that assistance reaches the Cuban people directly and is not diverted for the benefit of a regime with such a poor record on human rights and civil liberties? The House would really benefit from a clearer statement of the Government’s overall policy towards Cuba at what is clearly a significant moment for the country and its people.
Chris Elmore
I know how much my hon. Friend cares about this issue, and I was pleased to meet her and other colleagues recently to discuss the challenges that the Cuban people are facing. On better bilateral relations, we are looking to extend our work on climate and wider environmental protections, and also on science and technology, so we are looking more towards our bilateral relationship. She is right to say that the political dialogue and co-operation agreement remains under review.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Trump’s reckless blockade is exacerbating the humanitarian crisis facing Cubans. It is the latest iteration of his “might is right” approach to global diplomacy, with devastating impacts. Four months in, Cubans are facing a backlog of 96,000 pending surgeries. There are 1 million people without reliable drinking water, empty petrol stations and a deadly summer heatwave. UN experts are formally condemning the blockade as “energy starvation”— a coercive tool that is being used against civilians.
With fresh sanctions imposed on Thursday, the situation will only get worse. Given that Raúl Castro is now indicted, the parallels with Venezuela, where Trump used an indictment as a precursor to forcible regime change, are impossible to ignore.
What conversations have the Government had with the US Administration about the blockade? Will the Minister provide an assessment of what will happen next, including of the possibility of military incursions? As Spain and Canada organise emergency aid shipments, will the Government review our aid contribution?
Equality Act 2010: Code of Practice
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the draft Equality Act 2010 code of practice for services, public functions and associations.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is the independent equality regulator, and it ensures compliance with the Equality Act 2010. Its code of practice covers all nine protected characteristics and the steps service providers should take to comply with the law. On receipt of the draft code from the EHRC in September, we consulted the devolved Governments in Wales and Scotland, per the process set out in the Equality Act 2006. The EHRC sent the Government an updated draft code last month, following engagement and further legal analysis, ensuring it is robust and accessible with clear explanations. The Minister for Women and Equalities updated Parliament in April, with the Government committed to laying the code in May following restrictions during the pre-election period. My right hon. Friend honoured that commitment on 21 May.
The EHRC has worked hard to produce a code that works for everyone. Following the laying of the draft code, there is now a 40-day period, not including the recess, that allows for parliamentary scrutiny, as set out in the Equality Act 2006. If neither House disapproves the draft in this period, the Minister can then revoke the 2011 code by regulations and then bring the new code into force by a commencement order.
Today, I want to update the House on the contents of the code, in particular what has changed between this draft code and the 2011 version. The updates are primarily where there have been legislative changes, developments in case law, a change or clarification of terminology, or new guidance issued since the original code was published in 2011. The most substantial changes relate to the ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v. The Scottish Ministers handed down on 16 April 2025. The judgment set out that sex means biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, and that trans people are still protected by the Act. In its judgment, the Supreme Court also warned against reading the judgment
“as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”.
That is why this Government will always treat these issues sensitively and will refuse to use any group as a political football.
The Government have been clear that we will protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex where they are needed, such as women’s refuges. We have also been clear that everyone, including trans people, should have the right to access the services they need in a way that is respectful, protects dignity and privacy, and ensures adequate provision. Changes primarily relate to the provision of sex-based services, when it is lawful to limit access to services and associations based on sex and gender reassignment, implications for competitive sport, and asking about someone’s sex.
For duty bearers, the draft code provides further clarity on how service providers can follow the Supreme Court ruling in practice. Although it cannot cover every single scenario, the EHRC has provided key explanations and worked examples, meaning that there is something that every organisation can take from it and apply in their own context with common sense. If a service provider still is not sure, perhaps because of a quite specific circumstance, they should take legal advice.
For clarity, the draft code indicates that a single-sex service should be provided on the basis of biological sex, so a women-only service should be for biological women only.
Service providers should find that the code provides certainty and clarity on who can access single-sex services and how they can best ensure women’s privacy, dignity and safety.
The code encourages services to communicate their policy on single-sex provision clearly, empowering women to make informed choices when accessing services. This could be especially useful for those women who, for feelings of safety or cultural or religious reasons, are unable to share some spaces with men. The draft code is also clear that trans people should not be left without services to use. Providers could provide mixed-sex facilities or specific support for trans people. We believe service providers will be able to find the right balance for everyone.
Members have raised accessing toilet facilities. The code indicates that toilets designated as male or female should be for those of that biological sex. Trans people can use accessible toilets, individual lockable toilets or unisex toilets. The draft code reflects that there must be toilet services for all, and many businesses and service providers will already meet those requirements. For example, a small café might have only one or two individual locked toilets for use by all customers. The draft code provides practical guidance on different ways to comply with the law. Some organisations will not need to make any changes at all and for those that do, in the majority of cases, we are talking about changing signs on existing facilities or updating them so that they are fully enclosed.
What the code does not provide is the right for members of the public to challenge one another on their sex and access to those spaces. People have been using single-sex spaces with a sensible and respectful attitude to other users for years and will continue to do so. Most people have the common sense to step in when necessary, when a person of the opposite biological sex enters a single-sex facility in error, for example, or to know when to alert a member of staff. The draft code provides clarity to service providers to ensure that people have access to services that are private and safe.
I am aware that some have also raised concerns over the code’s content regarding special category personal data. The code states that where an individual is asked to confirm their sex, that should be done sensitively and with respect for their privacy. The draft code explains that information about sex is likely to constitute special category personal data, where, for example, asking about sex may lead to the disclosure of someone’s medical history or the fact that they have a gender recognition certificate. The code advises providers to handle such conversations appropriately. We will work with the EHRC to ensure that service providers understand what is required of them when handling data.
There is also an interest in associations. If an association is for “women only”, the draft code indicates that that should be on the basis of biological sex. The draft code’s section on associations based on more than one protected characteristic means that an association that wants to be trans-inclusive can do so by basing its membership on both sex and gender reassignment.
There are also changes to disability, maternity and pregnancy protections. The draft code highlights protections for disabled people in the Equality Act that expand on what was included in the previous code, such as non-discrimination in relation to access to services. This will be the first time they are recognised and explained in the code. This is an important step for disabled people’s rights.
For pregnant and breastfeeding women, the updated code highlights that harassment relating to breastfeeding may also constitute unlawful harassment on the grounds of sex, confirming that women are protected. The code also highlights that while the protected characteristic of pregnancy and maternity is not covered directly under the harassment protections in the Act, it is indirectly covered, as such harassment amounts to harassment related to sex.
We note the wider interest in the implementation of the For Women Scotland judgment and the draft code across Government. We are committed to doing this and are working across Departments, considering the implications of the code on policies and activities.
The Equality Act is one of the most significant achievements in modern British history which was enacted by the previous Labour Government. It is the quiet guardian in millions of people’s daily lives. This Government will uphold and protect it, not weaken it. We are grateful to the EHRC for its work on the draft code to ensure that duty bearers and service users have up-to-date guidance on the Equality Act. We will always uphold our British values of treating everyone with dignity and respect. I commend this statement to the House.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Lady for her response and questions. Let me say up front that we take this issue incredibly seriously. Services and associations need to operate in compliance with the law, and we want to support them. The issue is not a political football for us; nor should it be for any Member of this House. We are focused on the practical—treating everyone with compassion, dignity and respect—and we should never fan the flames or seek to grab headlines. We will support services to operate and provide single-sex spaces where needed and ensure that trans people have access to all the services to support their needs, too.
The hon. Lady accused the Government of delay but, as a shadow Equalities Minister, she will know that there is a process that has to be followed. In line with that process, as outlined in the Equality Act 2006, we consulted the devolved Administrations; we worked across Government on the myriad services that we provide, or support others to provide; and we conducted an analysis of the code and its impact. The EHRC made some changes following its engagement and consultation. We were told by the Cabinet Office’s permanent secretary that we could not lay the code during the pre-election period. We have now laid the draft.
The hon. Lady said that in laying the draft in May, before the parliamentary recess, as my right hon. Friend committed to do, we were somehow seeking to delay scrutiny. It may help to clarify that upon laying the draft there is a 40-day period that allows for parliamentary scrutiny, and that excludes the recess. There is sufficient time for adequate scrutiny, and I am sure that the House will give the matter its attention.
In relation to guidance for the NHS, it is helpful for the House to know that NHS England is currently reviewing its guidance and will ensure that it reflects the Supreme Court ruling in the For Women Scotland v. The Scottish Ministers case. It will also take account of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s statutory code of practice.
It is important to note that although the code does not directly apply to employers, its explanation of the Equality Act 2010—particularly around unlawful discrimination and harassment—will be relevant to and helpful for employers in considering how best to comply with their obligations under that legislation. The EHRC has a separate employment code of practice, which it also intends to update in the future.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I really wish that there was a better beginning to Pride Month than what we are discussing. Although the code is marginally different from its draft, it is still a trans-exclusionary one at its core, and unfortunately not inclusive. Moves like this from the EHRC and the Government have seen the UK slip from third in 2019 to 22nd in the European rankings for LGBT+ people to live and feel safe. Does the Minister share my concern that the new code of practice will only further the UK’s now hostile environment for trans people and not calm it? How will she act to stop the erosion of LGBT+ rights in this country?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will know that making sure that we can support women and their rights, alongside treating trans people with dignity, must be the priority for all of us. That is what we are aiming to achieve. That is why it is important that we have the draft code now available for scrutiny. We will continue to ensure that we provide single-sex spaces where needed, and also ensure that trans people have access to services to support their needs, in an environment of dignity and respect for all.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. After the Supreme Court’s ruling last year, the Government’s job was to give people, businesses and organisations clear, workable guidance. The code is instead unworkable, exclusionary and expensive for businesses. As the Minister knows, the Government must ensure that they meet the legal obligations placed on them by the public sector equality duty. That requires the Minister to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct, to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not, and to foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not.
Yet the Government’s own equality impact assessment identifies disproportionate harm to those with protected characteristics, and a failure to set out how that harm will be addressed. Can the Minister really say, hand on heart, that she believes the guidance does that? The impact assessment notes how the guidance will likely impact women who are not trans, yet do not meet cultural and social expectations around what a woman should look like. There have already been stories of women with mastectomies being challenged when accessing women-only spaces because they do not look like women. Has the Minister truly considered that?
For trans, non-binary and intersex people, the code operates from a position of exclusion. It risks driving those small minorities away from public life, as leading mental health charities have since warned. The guidance conflicts with our core British values of tolerance, decency, respect for individual liberty and the rule of law. That is why I urge the Minister to withdraw it and to accept that this issue needs to be resolved by Parliament as law makers. To achieve that, I beg the Minister to adopt the Liberal Democrat proposal to appoint a joint committee of cross-party MPs and peers, to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010, taking evidence from all communities who have been impacted, in order to propose amendments or new legislation that it sees as necessary to ensure that existing rights are protected. If we work together we can fix this; sowing division will not.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I too have been contacted by a great many trans people, and their families and friends, who have expressed genuine fear about the implications of this guidance. We have heard about the practicalities. I have heard from someone who has cancelled a hip operation because they are not sure that they will be treated with dignity when they go into hospital. I hear from people who are changing their patterns of work, travel and leisure because they cannot be certain that they can use toilets unchallenged, and therefore face an extra risk of violence. However, what comes through very strongly from all of them is the challenge that this presents to their identity. Many of them have lived for decades in their gender, and now they are thinking about potentially having to say to their colleagues at work—people who think of them as being of that gender, because it is all they have ever known them as— “Actually, I was born in a different gender, so can you tell me how I can use the toilets, how I can use the changing room?” This is just unacceptable.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady really must get to a question—she has spoken for nearly as long as her party’s Front Bencher.
Charlotte Cane
Will the Minister consider changing the law so that the Equality Act lives up to its name?
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alicia Kearns
I am sorry but the idea that somebody just chasing an update—“Can I just check where we are with that? We really would like to get it done”—and that there is no concept of any bullying because someone is just asking for something to be done a bit quicker, is a foolhardy suggestion by the hon. Gentleman.
The Prime Minister has come to the House many times, as hon. Members have said, but he has not answered the questions. The Prime Minister himself set the terms. Either he misled the House or he was reckless with the truth, and those are the terms that he set. Multiple people have lost their jobs over this Prime Minister’s decision to appoint Mandelson: two civil servants and two political appointments. For a man who said he would never sack his staff because of his own appointments, that is quite something. The Prime Minister’s judgment has also shown that he was happy to appoint people to Cabinet who had lied to the police, where he knew full well that they had done that, so there is a pattern.
Olly Robbins lost his job for implementing the wishes of the Prime Minister by the book. Either he followed due process and was sacked for doing so, or there was no due process and he was sacked because there was not. The Prime Minister’s position so far is that the former is true; it cannot be both, in which case Olly Robbins should never have been sacked. He did his job under immense pressure and was stripped of the agency to say no. As Mr Speaker set out at the start of the debate, this motion does not attribute guilt to anyone and the vote today is for an investigation by the Privileges Committee. That Committee is chaired by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and I want to place on the record my total faith in his probity and professionalism.
Unfortunately, as we have seen in previous approaches and investigations, some people may seek to undermine individuals.
I appreciate that there are a range of views among Labour Members. Some of them seem genuinely to believe the Prime Minister’s version of events, while others share the concerns of Conservative Members, even if they are reticent to say so. I point out that at no point in this debate has there been more than nine Labour MPs sat on the Back Benches who were elected before 2024.
I was once a new MP, and I too went through this process. As I have said before, on the Owen Paterson vote, I voted in a way that I deeply regret. I had planned to vote against him, because, in watching the debate from the Government Benches, I was horrified by what I saw. Despite the enormous pressure from people around me, I thought, “Okay, I must do what is right,” and I decided to vote with those 13 brave Conservatives who did the right thing. I then went downstairs to breastfeed my daughter, who was very young at the time—she was just turning six months old—but when I came back upstairs there was only one minute remaining following the Division Bells. When I looked at the two voting Lobbies, I could not see those 13 friends who had gone the right way on the vote, so I stood there on my own, absolutely terrified about what to do, and saw everyone else going through the other Lobby. I will never, ever accept feeling that way ever again.
I say to the new intake that there is a reason why no other MPs from previous intakes are on the Labour Benches, and why MPs from previous intakes have said, “If your gut is telling you there’s a problem, there’s a problem.” They have given you their advice. They often tell us how dismissive you are of them, but—[Interruption.] Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—you would never be dismissive of anyone.
There is a reason, and you should take that time—
Alicia Kearns
Oh my goodness! I can only apologise again for saying “you”, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There is a reason why Labour MPs from older intakes have chosen not to come and defend the Prime Minister: they have seen this show before and know what happens. They know that their gut is telling them the right thing to do. I congratulate those of them who have been brave enough to speak out and share their views.
The House will recall that the Government attempted to whip Labour MPs against giving the Intelligence and Security Committee a role in assessing and releasing the Mandelson files, as per the Humble Address. Parliament asserted itself on that day, and we must do so again. A vote against this motion will show loud and clear that Labour Members forgave, followed the party line and ignored their conscience. There is precedent here: in 2022, the House unanimously passed a motion allowing an inquiry into whether the then Prime Minister had misled Parliament. We Conservatives supported that motion—not a single MP blocked it. I know how hard such decisions are because we have been there. I supported the Committee’s finding that Boris Johnson had misled the House. My advice to Labour MPs is to listen to your conscience and do what you know is right. Members will thank themselves, as the years pass by, for being free of the weight of regret.
Standards matters should never be whipped. Is any Labour MP willing to stand up and say that the threat of having the Whip removed has not been made? So far, none of them has said that. [Interruption.] Indeed, pressure seems to be an issue that we ought to debate more. I would also say to Labour MPs who are considering speaking in this debate that you may find—[Hon. Members: “They may find!”] Labour Members may find that, before the vote this evening, their party changes its mind and they are no longer being whipped. I encourage Labour MPs to reflect on whether that is the record that a Member may wish to have. Whips do change their minds if Members make representations to them. Can you truly say that the whole story is out there?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. May I remind the hon. Lady that much of her speech has been addressed to me, but I am not speaking or voting this afternoon?
Alicia Kearns
I fully accept that. I know better and I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I think hon. Members will find that this debate is not about the SNP. Perhaps we all ought to confine our remarks to the subject we are actually debating.
Chris Kane
To finish my metaphor—not about the SNP—we must hold steady, make the adjustments needed and focus on getting safely to better conditions. That is the task in front of us, and that is why I will support the Prime Minister to continue doing the job that he was elected to do, keep a steady hand on the tiller and guide the country through challenging times. I urge colleagues to do the same.
In the end, this is about stability, seriousness and leadership, and that is what this country needs. Today’s motion feels to me like a distraction from that mission, so I urge colleagues across the Chamber to vote against it.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Before I start, let me pay tribute to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, because their views have been heard far too little in these debates.
Let me address some of the quite patronising comments made to Back-Bench Labour MPs today. Nobody has asked me to speak today, and nobody has put any pressure on me. In fact, colleagues on the Government Benches know that I have my own mind and will express it as I see fit.
At a moment of genuine challenge for families across the country, when households are concerned about rising prices, instability abroad and pressure on living standards, the Opposition have tabled a motion that is ultimately more concerned with political point scoring than practical solutions. That is deeply regrettable, because the British public expect and deserve better than Westminster at its most performative. They expect seriousness, and they rightly expect scrutiny where scrutiny is due, but they also expect Parliament to focus on the issues that shape their daily lives: the bills landing on their doormats, the cost of food in the supermarkets, the price of fuel at the pumps and the strength of the economy in uncertain times.
Let me be absolutely clear: Peter Mandelson should never have been appointed as our ambassador. The Prime Minister has recognised that, and he has apologised for that. He did so properly, repeatedly, with transparency and accountability, and with respect to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. That was the right course of action, and I would not have expected anything less from the Prime Minister, because I have known him for many years. I worked with him as he sought to rid our party of the stain of antisemitism, which has now infected others. I have seen him stand up to Putin when others have taken bribes from his allies.
Given that the processes of transparency are in place and under way, it has to be asked: why are the Opposition parties working to ride roughshod over investigation processes that they all agreed to? We heard the answer earlier in the debate: it is for social media clicks and cheap headlines ahead of significant elections. The fact is that the Government have agreed to and are complying with the Humble Address to allow scrutiny of the Mandelson appointment in this place and to allow us to see the facts and the advice that was available to the Prime Minister at the time Mandelson was appointed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is chairing a Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry to which key figures involved in the Mandelson appointment have rightly been summoned, and the Prime Minister has come to this House repeatedly to answer questions about that appointment.
As has been expressed by others, politically motivated use of the Privileges Committee procedures risks undermining those procedures. It is clear that the circumstances the Opposition hoped would come to light and might bring down a successful Labour Government have been nothing more than conspiracy. First, they said that the Prime Minister must have known that UK Security Vetting’s recommendation was to reject vetting for Peter Mandelson, yet Olly Robbins confirmed to the Select Committee last week that he had chosen not to share that crucial information with the Prime Minister. They were wrong. They said that the Prime Minister was wrong to say that due process was followed, yet Chris Wormald has confirmed in a letter to the Prime Minister that the process was followed. In his own words, he said:
“The evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude that appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal”
of the former ambassador to Washington. Again, they were wrong. How could the Prime Minister have made any other assessment than that due process was followed, when that was spelled out to him in black and white by his own officials? Those are not rumours or talking points; they are facts, and facts matter in this place.
Many good colleagues on the Government Benches and, indeed, some on the Opposition Benches know deep down that the No. 1 issue facing our constituents is the cost of living fallout from Trump’s war in Iran—a war that was egged on by parties on the Opposition Benches. We know that, because that is what voters have been telling every one of us when we have been out on the doors in the lead-up to the elections in May. They are worried about their bills, the prices at the pump and the prices in the supermarkets. While some in this House want to engage in political stunts, this very afternoon the Prime Minister is convening a committee on the response to the conflict in the middle east and on how we support the British economy, our services and, most importantly, our constituents.
What is clear is that only one party is focused on the job of delivering for the British people, and it is the one that the country voted for in the last election. It is galling that the Conservative party, after 14 years of chaos, scandal and economic recklessness, now wants to lecture anyone else on standards in public life. It is the party that gave us partygate, revolving-door Prime Ministers, cronyism, collapsing public services and Liz Truss’s catastrophic experiment that sent mortgages soaring and punished working families for the Conservatives’ failures. Meanwhile, the Conservatives collude with the SNP—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I have made the point previously, but please will Members confine themselves to debating the issue at hand and not get into fighting the local election campaign?
Johanna Baxter
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Those are the issues we could have been debating today, but instead we are debating a political stunt. This Government are standing up for the British people, showing leadership in our support for Ukraine, bringing our national rail services back into public ownership and delivering our historic Employment Rights Act 2025, among many other things. When I vote this afternoon, I do so knowing full well that I was elected to serve on the priorities that matter to the people of Paisley and Renfrewshire South: their bills, their security and their welfare. I will vote to ensure that we have a Government who continue to focus on those priorities.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
No.
The Conservatives are demeaning and diminishing an important parliamentary process. Our disciplinary processes are serious, and they should not be used for political point scoring. A Committee of Privileges investigation would not bring further clarity; it would only create a long, costly and wholly unnecessary duplication of processes that are either completed or already under way. It is a distraction, and I guess that is why the Conservatives want it. It is a stunt, and that is why I will vote against it.
Under the previous Government, this House was treated with contempt. Standards were bent and procedures were torn apart to protect those in power, with the support of many Conservative Members. We are entitled to ask: why do they raise this matter now? Well, it is because there is an election in a few days’ time, but it is also because they fundamentally cannot accept the change that this Government are delivering. They cannot accept that we are investing in public services that they ran into the ground.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am going to make this point again: we are debating privilege, not the Government’s record and actions.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
I will wind up.
We were elected with a mandate to deliver change, and that is exactly what we will do. The Conservative party is trying to distract from that fact, but it will not work.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
There has been much speculation in recent weeks about the state of the Diego Garcia treaty and the associated Bill, and—with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will take this opportunity to update the House.
We have debated at length the critical importance of the military base on Diego Garcia to the national security of the United Kingdom and that of our allies. The base allows us to project the full array of military capabilities in one of the most important regions for international stability and global trade. It is vital to the countering of terrorism and threats from state adversaries, and protects Britons at home and overseas.
As the House knows, the operation of the base has been under threat for decades. The Government inherited a situation in which there was no legal certainty for future operations, and the threat of the UK losing our ability to operate effectively for us and our allies was and remains real, as those on the Opposition Benches know full well. The status quo is untenable, and ignoring the situation would have been reckless and irresponsible. The previous Government knew that, which is why they opened negotiations with Mauritius, why they put sovereignty on the table, and why they had 11 rounds of talks and agreed the vast majority of the treaty. [Interruption.] I know the Conservatives do not want to hear this, but it would be better if we had some quiet and I could make the statement.
I am proud that this Government completed the process in May last year. The Diego Garcia treaty puts the base on a secure legal footing for the first time in decades. It gives us complete operational freedom, and puts in place important safeguards to protect the base from outside threats. In short, the treaty ensures the continued contribution of the base to UK national security, and to the security of our allies, for generations.
The Diego Garcia military base was founded as a jointly operated base by the UK and the United States. It is one of the foundation stones on which our close defence and security partnership was built. Of course, the previous Government knew that, which is why they took action to start the negotiations when they did. For that reason, the treaty to protect the base was negotiated in close co-ordination with the United States, under both this and the previous US Administration. The treaty was tested thoroughly at all levels of the United States system under two Administrations, and found to be robust.
Throughout this process, we have always been clear that we could not let the treaty enter into force without US support. We had that support when the treaty was signed, and we have had it consistently since. President Trump called it “very strong” and “powerful”. Secretary Rubio welcomed it as a “historic agreement” that
“secures the long-term, stable, and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia”.
Nothing in the treaty has changed since then, and the United States’ support has been consistent in viewing the agreement as the best means of protecting operations on this vital military asset.
However, the position of the US President appears to have changed in recent weeks. This means that, in practical terms, it has become impossible to agree at political level an update to the 1966 UK-US agreement concerning the availability of defence purposes of the British Indian Ocean Territory, known as the exchange of notes, which is necessary to ratify the treaty. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that updates to the exchange of notes are nothing unusual; in fact, they have been updated periodically to ensure that the governance arrangements for the base remain fit for purpose in a changing world. They were updated in 1972, 1976, 1987 and 1999, and were rolled over in 2016. They now need a further update in the light of the Diego Garcia treaty. We have previously debated this issue in this House, and I know that my counterpart, Baroness Chapman, has similarly discussed it in the other place.
Officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and from the Ministry of Defence, have been working with United States counterparts over many months and have made excellent progress in updating the agreement. I can confirm that a finalised text was agreed at official level and is ready for political clearance and signature, but due to the new comments to which I referred, this process will obviously not proceed on the previously agreed timeframe. Because of the delays in agreeing the exchange of notes, the Diego Garcia Bill cannot complete its passage in this parliamentary Session, and it cannot be carried over due to its advanced progression through Parliament. The Government nevertheless remain confident that the Diego Garcia treaty is the best means of protecting the full operation of the military base for us and our allies for future generations. We will continue to work with the United States on the agreement and the way forward, and we will continue to engage closely with Mauritius.
In parallel with the geostrategic developments, there is the human story. I refer to the Chagossians, who have rightly been raised by many right hon. and hon. Members, and who were removed from the archipelago in the 1960s and ’70s. As I have said on many occasions, the Government deeply regret the manner of their removal, and we remain committed to building a relationship with Chagossian communities that is built on respect and an acknowledgment of the wrongs of the past. The delay to the treaty will be sad news to many Chagossians—although I accept not all—who rightly see it as the only viable means of a sustainable programme of resettlement, which Mauritius would be able to implement under its terms. As I have said on many occasions, we also want to see the recommencement of the programme of heritage visits, which we understand are so important to Chagossians, particularly to the older generations.
These are times of great uncertainty and acute risk to British interests. Our security and prosperity are under threat at home and overseas, and this is a moment for calm and considered reflection, not cheap political point scoring by Opposition parties—[Interruption.] They are absolutely proving this very point. They would put our security at risk and play reckless games.
The threats facing the future operation of the Diego Garcia base are real, as the Opposition well know, and the Diego Garcia treaty remains the best means of securing the vital military base on the island. We will continue to work with partners, including the United States and Mauritius, to protect our national security and that of our allies. I commend this statement to the House.
Middle East
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
When I met the Gulf Co-operation Council, our partners welcomed our support and our long-standing commitment to their security, stability and territorial integrity. At the moment, they face challenges from the ballistic missiles threat, so we are providing basing in support of the US defensive operations. They also face threats from drones and cruise missiles, so we are providing jets to help strike them down and some of the long-standing air defences that I saw in Saudi. They also face significant economic threats, because Iran is now deliberately targeting their economic infrastructure to escalate the situation more widely. That is why we are working closely with them on a way forward for the strait of Hormuz.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.
The war of Trump and Netanyahu—cheered on uncritically by Reform Members and the Conservatives—has put our citizens and troops in the region under immediate threat from Iran’s reckless retaliation, and worsened the cost of living crisis for households here in the UK. The Government’s first priority must be to protect our citizens, our troops and our allies facing unprovoked attacks. They must also take action on the huge cost increases here at home. I wish to put on record my party’s thanks to our brave service personnel for their work to keep our citizens safe.
We also now face the possibility of another major escalation. Reports suggest that a ground invasion of Lebanon by Israeli defence forces is imminent. Hezbollah is a brutal terror organisation and must be disarmed, but that must be achieved by working with leaders in Beirut and through international organisations. Will the Foreign Secretary tell me what further steps she will take to pressure the Netanyahu Government to cease their devastating strikes on Lebanon, and pull back from plans for a ground offensive? Will she also set out what new steps the Government are taking to halt and reverse the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank?
The IRGC is also a terrorist organisation and should be proscribed here in the UK. Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why she has still not done that? We know that UK bases have now been used by the US to conduct strikes in Iran. The Prime Minister told this House that those strikes would be only defensive. To assure the House of that, it is crucial that the UK monitors the outcomes of US actions. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether the Government have been supplied with that information by US forces or, if not, will she confirm whether the Government have asked for it?
It was wholly predictable that Iran would retaliate by closing the strait of Hormuz. Donald Trump has now made a shameless plea that NATO allies should clean up the mess that he initiated. Liberal Democrats are clear that we cannot afford to be dragged by Trump into this costly foreign adventure. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Government will seek to secure an emergency resolution from the UN Security Council, calling for a multilateral approach to reopening the strait of Hormuz? Will she commit to bringing a vote to this House before any UK forces are sent to operate in the strait?
International Women’s Day
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Earlier, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) mentioned that it can be difficult to advise people to come into the role that we all do. She would be well served just by playing people a recording of what we have heard in the House today. This debate has been of the highest quality, and I thank everybody for their contributions so far. It has been a genuine pleasure to listen and be part of it.
We have had the whole gamut. People have taken the opportunity to big up their own constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) did excellently. I will not mention everybody because I cannot remember everybody’s constituency, but I will do my best. People have taken the opportunity to celebrate wonderful things in the country, and the wonderful people who saw a glass ceiling and jumped higher. It has been wonderful to be part of it.
People also did not shy away from the difficult things that we must do. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), who both took the opportunity to talk about some really difficult things. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for her powerful testimony. She is somebody I always enjoy listening to in the Chamber, and I thank her for her contribution today.
The debate today serves many of those purposes. It gives us the opportunity to celebrate what is great, but also to talk about where our society and systems have failed women for far too long, and unfortunately, that is my role today. I want to raise a way in which the system has let down far too many people for far too long. I am talking about the crimes of Mohamed al-Fayed. I am specifically talking about his crimes, because I do not want to talk about him. Today is about the proud survivors who have done all they can to bring his crimes to light.
Al-Fayed, the former owner of Harrods, was a sexual predator. He trafficked and sexually abused hundreds of women over decades with near complete impunity. Well over 400 survivors have already come forward, and every day, more women take the brave decision to do so. Yesterday, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) powerfully described al-Fayed as Britain’s Epstein. It is a characterisation that she and I have heard many times from survivors, as we co-chair the all-party parliamentary group for the survivors of Fayed and Harrods. It is good to see another of our officers here, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam).
The scale of the crimes committed by this predator—I will not call him a man, because real men respect women—is staggering, but it is a mistake to think that this is the work of one bad human. Al-Fayed was supported by a network of enablers. He died having escaped justice, but there are scores of people who can and must be held to account. They include employees who identified, groomed and trafficked women for abuse; security staff who harassed and intimidated survivors into silence; lawyers who churned out non-disclosure agreement after non-disclosure agreement, while nobody thought to do anything about it; doctors who performed invasive medical exams and reported—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but as there is one live civil case, may I encourage him to exercise caution in what he says? It is perfectly okay to say anything about Mr al-Fayed, who is dead.
Dave Robertson
Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is really important, because there are some ongoing cases; I will talk about the Metropolitan police in a minute.
It is clear that we must do better. For far too long, survivors have been ignored. That cannot and must not continue. I am really grateful to the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, who is set to meet survivors very soon, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment yesterday to meeting survivors. It has taken far too long to get to this stage, but I am glad to see that things are finally starting to move.
I have had the privilege of meeting dozens of women who have taken the very brave step of disclosing their experiences to parliamentarians and people they have never met before. Their tenacity and strength has been fundamental to driving this agenda forward and making these recent advances. I am very grateful to all survivors, as I am sure everybody in the APPG is, but we must never take the trust that they have placed in us for granted.
The APPG ran a consultation with survivors, and we are really pleased that we have had dozens and dozens of responses to it, because we are clear that there is a huge network of people who have been wronged in so many ways by so many systems. It is astonishing how almost every time we have a meeting, there is something else. The scale of the failings cuts right across civil society and enormous parts of the state, and a huge amount needs to be done to recompense these people who have been so poorly served for so long.
I thank the Survivors Trust, which has been working with the APPG, and which provided invaluable support to ensure that we are working in a safe way, bearing in mind the trauma that survivors have suffered. In the coming months, I am eager to work with Members across this House and the other place, and anybody who wants to be involved, to make sure we build up a drumbeat of evidence about the scale of these crimes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I expect to call the Front Benchers at about 4.30 pm, or maybe a little later, and I have either six or seven Members waiting to speak. Perhaps Members who are still waiting could confine their remarks to six or seven minutes, so that everyone can get in.
Ukraine
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right, first, about the outstanding firm in his Horsham constituency and, secondly, about the impact of Putin on Ukraine. It has not built a new sense of national identity because that was strong before Putin’s invasion—as I said, Ukrainians have suffered and fought occupation by Russian forces for 12 years—but it has deeply strengthened that identity and the determination that Ukraine will remain a sovereign nation in future. Whatever briefings Putin gets in the Kremlin, he is being misled to think that he is winning. He is failing, and it is our job, with other allies, to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Part of that is the military aid that this country has been providing to Ukraine, but it is also action on other fronts. The Government have frozen nearly £30 billion of Russian assets in the UK and imposed over 3,000 sanctions on Russian individuals, organisations and ships, including a package of 300 new sanctions announced yesterday by the Foreign Secretary. We know that Russia’s vast shadow fleet bankrolls much of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine, and sanctions by the UK and our partners have already forced around 200 ships to anchor out of use. We have seen the impact on Russian oil reserves, which fell by a quarter last year, but we need to do more and shift up a gear, with our militaries playing a greater role. That work has begun.
The UK has already supported both the US and France in conducting maritime interceptions. At the Munich Security Conference, I chaired a meeting of the joint expeditionary force nations, with Defence Ministers brought together to discuss conducting further operations against shadow shipping vessels. Today, I confirm that the MOD is now leading a new joint operational taskforce to advance those plans.
After four years, weariness with the war would be understandable, but in Britain our solidarity endures. It is a solidarity grounded both in deep respect for Ukrainian courage and in clear recognition that the defence of Europe starts in Ukraine. The British people understand that the cost of conflict always outweighs the price of preventing war. Four years ago, Putin’s invasion sent inflation into double digits; indeed, our energy prices are still 40% higher and our food prices are still 30% higher, as we all daily pay the price of this war.
The British people also know that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he will not stop in Ukraine. They see the Ukrainians fighting for the same values that past generations in Britain have fought for: the right of a free people to decide their own country’s future. Like the Father of the House, I am proud that Britain remains united for Ukraine, I am proud that President Zelensky calls us one of his very closest allies and I am proud of the UK’s leadership on Ukraine, started under the previous Government and stepped up further under ours.
Let me end where I began, by paying tribute to the people of Ukraine. Four years ago, we all remember those expert commentators largely being in agreement: Kyiv would be captured, Zelensky would flee, the Ukrainian command would collapse and a pro-Russian regime would be installed while the world watched on. If this war has taught us anything, it is never to underestimate the will of the Ukrainian people. They remain outnumbered and outmatched in every domain, and yet they have recently retaken territory, they continue to strike deep into Russia and, in some parts of the frontline, over 25 Russians have been killed for every Ukrainian life lost.
After four years of this brutal Russian aggression, of unbreakable Ukrainian courage and of enduring solidarity with those who stand with them, this must be the year that peace is agreed. Our UK promise to Ukraine is this: we will keep up the pressure on Putin; we will stand by and support the Ukrainian armed forces; and when peace comes, we will help secure it and ensure that it lasts.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
May I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for his excellent opening speech? It gave us all the details. I also pay tribute to the Opposition, although on this one thing, they are not the opposition. I am so proud that we have all stayed together, right the way through, and there is nothing between us. Our support is not symbolic; we do what we do because we love these people, and we love Ukraine. As I said at the beginning of all this, Ukraine is fighting our war, because if Russia gets through Ukraine, it will be in Europe, and then here.
In this solemn debate, we remember all those whose lives have been shattered by war. Yesterday marked four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It was a brutal escalation of a conflict that has brought immense suffering to millions, and that continues to threaten the foundations of international law, human dignity and, according to some, the start of world war three.
Yesterday I met Iryna Dovgan, a Ukrainian woman whose quiet courage speaks louder than any statistic. During Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea, she was detained, brutally abused and ultimately forced to flee her home in Donetsk. Only now, years later, has she finally received reparations. That support has transformed her life, enabling her to access vital medical treatment and begin rebuilding what was taken from her, yet her case is the exception, not the rule. She begged us last night to ensure that reparations get to the women and children who have been so terribly, terribly abused, and that they do not have to wait for years.
Thousands of Ukrainians have endured similar horrors, first in 2014 and again since the full-scale invasion began four years ago. Since 24 February 2022, communities across Ukraine have been scarred by violence. Homes have been destroyed; families hav been separated; and civilians have been subjected to torture, sexual violence and unlawful detention. Towns once full of life have been reduced to rubble. Children have been uprooted from their families and taken across the border—they are speaking Russian now; it is just horrendous what is going on—but people are working on that, and some children have been rescued. The human cost, not only in lives lost, but in futures stolen, is staggering.
People in my constituency—and, I am sure, in all hon. Members’ constituencies—from churches to veterans groups, are banding together to do their bit for Ukraine. For example, No Duff UK, a veteran-led organisation, is deploying volunteer teams to deliver humanitarian aid on the ground. Its work truly demonstrates the love we have for our brothers and sisters in Ukraine.
Our Government and our Parliament also demonstrate iron-clad support for Ukraine. Only yesterday, the Government announced a significant package of 300 new sanctions, aimed at cutting off the Kremlin’s revenue and weakening its capacity to wage this illegal war, including measures targeting Russia’s energy sector and key oil infrastructure. Those steps are welcome, but sanctions must be adequately enforced, co-ordinated and relentless. If they are not effective, they do not deter aggression, but embolden it, yet the UK lacks a clear strategy for ensuring that frozen Russian assets serve that purpose. I am pleased about what has been said in the debate today. Billions could remain immobilised for years, losing value, while sufferers wait without support—something that Iryna spoke about last night.
Working with our European partners, we should move decisively to seize and repurpose frozen Russian assets, including up to £30 billion held in the UK, and direct them towards humanitarian, financial and military support for Ukraine. We must ensure that UK-held funds linked to sanctioned individuals, including proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club and recovered assets from oligarch Petr Aven, are released swiftly and directed towards Ukrainian survivors. We must ensure that Ukrainian people receive justice. If we are serious about justice—and I know we are—we have to make sure that our word is kept and our actions deliver justice and peace for those people, who we are all so proud of and owe so much to. I am sure that they appreciate it.
British Indian Ocean Territory
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front Benchers. I call shadow Secretary of State James Cartlidge.
Dr Luke Evans
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister specifically directed some comments at me, opening up an opportunity for me to speak. How can I respond to those comments when I cannot intervene?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The hon. Member will know that it is entirely at the Minister’s discretion, as it would be for any other speaker, if he chooses to give way or not. It is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure the Minister has heard his comments.
Luke Pollard
I am very pro-Lukes generally speaking, but the hon. Member had 20 minutes in which to speak, and a few more interventions will not correct the quality of his speech.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an embarrassment that a Foreign Office Minister was unable to vote during this crucial debate on the Chagos islands. I wonder if you could have a word with the Speaker and see if it would be possible to extend the time limit to allow people to get to the Chamber?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Member for that point of order, which he will know full well is not a point of order.
Calum Miller
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. We have spent the last three and a half hours debating the UK-US base on Diego Garcia. Just before we began that debate, President Trump announced on social media that a US armada was positioned to attack Iran. Can I seek your advice on whether it would be appropriate for a Minister to come urgently to the Chamber to update the House and to clarify the Government’s position on the use of UK assets and personnel in any such attack?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order and for having given notice of it. Mr Speaker has received no notice from Ministers that they intend to make a statement on this matter. Ministers on the Front Bench will, however, have heard the hon. Member’s point of order.
Ukraine
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Sobel
My hon. Friend is inviting me to comment on our official development assistance cuts, on which we probably share the same opinion. There is a principle here about reparations, whether they are from the Russian state, from individuals who have benefited from this war or from the gangster kleptocracy that runs Russia. We need to do both those things. There is a wider discussion to be had about how we can support Ukraine and retrench some of the money for other areas, particularly Syria and, hopefully, Iran, that need ODA money from the UK now and in the near future.
As my time is nearly up, I will ask a couple of questions that the Minister can answer at the end of the debate. On the much-vexed question of our deployment of troops to Ukraine, it is very early. I want to counsel some Members that when they are talking about this, their language and approach is very reminiscent of the run-up to the second world war and Lord Halifax’s approach. There was an agreement in Munich, Chamberlain said that it would be a peace in our time, and then the war started—it came to us. Russia’s territorial ambitions are not limited; they are unlimited. We need to be cognisant of that. We need to be on the front foot, not on the back foot. I understand all the concerns about our ability to deploy troops. What planning are we doing at this stage? What is the process? What can we do to reassure MPs and the public that we are making the right planning steps towards that?
On what we can do now, the plans announced to develop new tactical ballistic missiles with Ukraine to strengthen its ability to defend itself against Russia are welcome. I am sure the Defence Minister will be able to answer this question: can the Government talk more about how and when we will do that and what the timelines are? Our own air defences are insufficient. We need to think about the future. If this war is protracted—if Putin does not settle and we do not get to a ceasefire—we ourselves could be threatened by drones, missiles and all the things we hear about every day in Ukraine. We need to be ready for our own defence, as well as the defence of Ukraine.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. There are still 12 Members who wish to speak. I was not going to propose a formal time limit. Perhaps, before I do, Members could restrict themselves to about five minutes and learn from each other’s examples?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Members will be interested to know that I will call the Front Benchers at 6.40 pm. There are four more speakers, with a total of 12 minutes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
Nigeria: Freedom of Religion or Belief
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It might be helpful to explain that interventions are not allowed from the Opposition Front Bench, so the hon. Member will not take the intervention.
David Smith
Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood).
In conclusion, Nigeria is rich with potential and possibility, but in my view violent and legal suppression of FORB is undermining the country’s future. A plural Nigeria, rooted in the common good, in which 250 million people have genuine freedom to reason, question and believe is a blessing to Nigeria itself, to Africa and to the world. A flourishing Nigeria is good for Britain and a challenge to the autocrats of west Africa in declaring that freedom is, in the end, worth it.
Conversely, every Christian kidnapped, every mosque bombed and every atheist imprisoned risks the continuation of the cycle of ethno-religious conflict, and a diminishing of all that Nigeria can be. No one wants that and I am pleased that the UK Government are serious about freedom of religion or belief in Nigeria. I am committed to working with the Government in every way possible to support a better way forward. This issue needed attention years ago and I am glad that it now has that attention.