Sudan: Humanitarian Situation

Debate between Chris Elmore and Anneliese Dodds

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Elmore]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his further questions. He is not correct about ODA cuts for Sudan. The Prime Minister has already committed to that funding continuing over the next three years, so it is not correct to say that there will be ODA cuts for Sudan.

We continue to support the International Criminal Court’s active investigation of the situation in Sudan. In relation to arms, I say to the House that we take very seriously allegations that UK-made equipment may have been transferred to Sudan, in breach of the UK’s arms embargo. There is no evidence in recent reporting of UK weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan.

In terms of reporting to the House, the Foreign Secretary answered substantive questions on Sudan at the beginning of this month and made a statement at the end of last month. It is notable that the hon. Gentleman was not here for those questions.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Government’s sanctioning of senior commanders in the RSF, but the Minister will be aware of the genuine fears about further barbaric escalation in the run-up to Christmas. He rightly talked about the appalling killing of peacekeepers, but in the past couple of days a hospital has been shelled, and there are huge concerns about the insecure situation of refugees, particularly in Tawila. What is the Government’s timeline for further measures to try to force the belligerents to protect civilians, as a matter of extreme urgency?

[Chris Elmore]

I know how much my right hon. Friend cares about this issue, particularly as she was a development Minister last year. Tomorrow, the UK will co-host with Denmark a closed informal interactive dialogue at the United Nations Security Council. It will address the urgent need to harmonise regional international mediation efforts to bring about the much-needed humanitarian ceasefire.

Covid-19 Economic Support Package

Debate between Chris Elmore and Anneliese Dodds

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I will make a little progress, if my hon. Friend does not mind.

We need to find out from the Government why they have not used the £1.3 billion underspend from the grants programme, which was already allocated as business support, for local areas to direct at businesses that need that help. Yesterday, the Chief Secretary said that the money was not available for use now because, in his words, “the need” had been “met”. That beggars belief. The need clearly has not been met. The Government should reallocate that funding on a consistent basis, so that businesses in the hardest-hit areas can get support.

What possible justification can there be for local areas getting control of test, trace and isolate only once they are into tier 3 and thus facing rapidly rising infection rates? As the debate following this one will indicate, the Government have poured vast amounts of public money into private contracts to deliver a system that is simply not working. Labour-run Wales has shown how locally delivered tracing is vastly more effective than a contracted-out system. When will the Chancellor’s Government stop dithering, follow the evidence and get a grip on test, track and trace?

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

One of the key benefits of the Welsh system is that it allows local government to track and trace where people may have had the virus and been in contact with someone. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the UK Government could apply that to England, it could save many people’s lives?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I believe that, actually, the contact rate is radically higher—above 90%, which is very significantly different. We are in a peculiar situation where our Government appear to believe that it only makes sense for local areas to get those powers, and the resources necessary to deliver them, once infections are already at an extremely high rate—once they are in tier 3. I find this very peculiar. Perhaps the Chancellor can explain why that support is only provided once local areas are at a high infection level.

Adequate support must be provided to those at the sharpest end of this crisis—those working in businesses that have been closed for public health reasons. The expansion of the job support scheme to closed businesses acknowledges an obvious gap in the original scheme. The Government maintain that, with their changes to universal credit, the lowest-paid workers will receive up to 88% of their previous income, but that ignores the continuing problems that the Government refuse to fix with universal credit and allied areas of policy. Why have they still not uprated the local housing allowance to median market rents so that affected people can cover their housing costs? Why will they not extend the ban on evictions? Why have they retained the benefit cap, now affecting twice as many people as at the start of this crisis? Why have they not abolished the two-child limit on universal credit and tax credits? Will the Government follow the previous Labour Government and reduce the waiting period for support from the mortgage interest scheme?

The list of questions goes on and on. It includes really significant ones about firms that have not been legally required to close but whose business has been heavily impacted by the imposition of new restrictions, so they will struggle to keep staff on for even a third of their hours. For those firms, the Chancellor’s job support scheme too often fails to incentivise businesses to bring back more staff part-time, instead of keeping some full-time and letting others go.