Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Before we start proceedings, I want to say two things. First, this debate is oversubscribed, so not everyone will get to speak. I hope to call 10 Back- Bench Members to contribute for three minutes each. If Members take interventions, they will not get extra time because this is an hour-long debate. Secondly, we expect Divisions in the House shortly. The procedure will be to suspend the debate for 15 minutes for the first Division and approximately 10 minutes for each subsequent Division.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

The debate may continue until 6.30 pm.

[Cat Eccles]

My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) is one of the longest-serving delegates. She sits on the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, fighting for gender equality, combating violence against women and girls and defending the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. She is a rapporteur for the committee and has overseen a report on the ban of so-called conversion practices, which will hopefully be passed at the next plenary in January. That report will provide model legislation for all 46 member states to pass and end that awful practice. Let us hope that this House is ready to enact those recommendations, as promised in our manifesto and the King’s Speech. As a member of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, I have worked with colleagues on youth democracy, artificial intelligence, ethics in sport and media freedom.

The Council of Europe develops recommendations on issues affecting all member states, including the UK. We may be an island, but sharing best practice and developing common conventions strengthens rights, freedoms and democratic values across the continent. The Council of Europe continues to lead globally, abolishing the death penalty in Europe, supporting democratic transitions and exposing human rights abuses. It expelled Russia from the Council, declaring it a terrorist state, and Belarus for its support for Russian aggression. This summer, I witnessed history being made in Strasbourg as President Zelensky signed a bilateral agreement with the Council of Europe to bring a trial against Russia for crimes of aggression against Ukraine.

But what has the ECHR ever done for us? Well, it has ensured that the Good Friday agreement has lasted this long. The incorporation of the ECHR into Northern Irish law means that the people of Northern Ireland have an independent arbiter to trust in disputes over fault during the troubles, and that is no small thing. It is vital to peace, societal rebuilding and the end of sectarianism. Maintained rights can create faith in people and shine light out of darkness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Eccles]

My hon. Friend has made a really important point. The convention covers so many parts of our life and we must maintain it.

Currently, our politics is consumed by the issue of small boats. Despite representing less than 2% of all immigration into the UK, the boats are suddenly the reason why we must abandon the convention and place our collective human rights at the mercy of Government. In many ways, the attempted attacks on our freedoms under the guise of liberation remind me of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. They say that truth is stranger than fiction, but I do not want to find myself looking from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again, and finding that I cannot tell which is which.

Of course, even the conflation of small boat arrivals with the ECHR is a lie. Mr Mundell, did you know that the ECHR has nothing written down relating to immigration or asylum? There is no right to asylum in the ECHR. Did you also know that, since the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Court’s rulings against the UK have fallen dramatically? It used to average 17 a year; now it is fewer than four. Indeed, it ruled against the UK only once in 2024—when, in a very nice piece of irony, the ECHR protected the rights of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday to freedom of expression. Even the convention’s harshest critics come running to it for protection when they are under threat from big government.

The University of Oxford recently published a Bonavero report titled “The European Convention on Human Rights and Immigration Control in the UK: Informing the Public Debate”, which centres on misinformation, over-reporting and outright lies in the press that poison the debate around the ECHR. I highly recommend it to all Members who are wavering on whether the UK should stay in the convention or leave it because of immigration.

There are two articles of the ECHR that have been tied to immigration. Article 3 is applied so that we do not send individuals back to torture or death—I would like to believe that we can all agree on that. Article 8, the right to family life, is projected by the ECHR’s critics as the real villain of the piece. They argue that it stops deportations of foreign criminals, sex offenders and individuals who arrived in the UK via small boats. There really is a lot of rubbish written in the papers and online relating to article 8, using examples of how the ECHR is being used to stop deportations and erode national security and identity.

The most notorious example was in February this year, when an Albanian criminal was apparently granted appeal to deportation because his son would not eat foreign chicken nuggets. The ruling was made because the criminal’s younger child had sensory issues, food sensitivities and emotional difficulties, but the upper tribunal rejected the appeal as not strong enough to be considered unduly harsh, and the case is still under review. For the record, article 8 is primarily used for reunification of British citizens with family members who are foreign nationals.

Let us step away from that story and look at some statistics. From 2015 to 2021, the Home Office removed 31,400 foreign national offenders from the UK, and in that period 1,000 foreign criminals managed to halt deportation on ECHR grounds, roughly 3% of the overall figure. Less than 1% of those cases were ultimately successful, so the ECHR is hardly the immovable object blocking the UK’s will in removing offenders from its shores.

Furthermore, the Court has ruled only three times that the UK’s immigration rules have violated the ECHR in the past 45 years, but political and media pressure appears to be bearing down on our relationship with the ECHR. There have been noises about tweaking the convention and about opening discussions, the thought of which fills me with dread.

Why concede the argument that the ECHR is to blame for our impotence, when that squarely does not match the reality? Why put the EHCR directly in the limelight of the political will of the day? Why cost businesses an estimated £1.6 billion at a time when they are already struggling? Why abandon the soft power that our place in the convention and institution affords us?

If I may say so, this reminds me of David Cameron’s renegotiation with the EU prior to the referendum. He put Britain’s relationship with the EU at the forefront of the agenda and worked tirelessly to get a better deal for Britain, believing that if he could show that Britain can renegotiate, the crocodiles in his party and on the fringes would let up—but in the end he lost it all. I make a plea to the Minister and to the Government: “Let’s draw a line in the sand. Stand up and fight for the convention and our place in it. Do not concede. Do not think that you can find a middle course that will satisfy all parties and stem the anti-politics sentiment that is so prevalent in the UK today. Let’s be bold and argue for the UK’s role in the Council of Europe and the ECHR.”

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call Paul Kohler. You have three minutes.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) on securing this debate.

I am pleased to speak about the ECHR and the UK’s membership of the Council of Europe. Across the political spectrum, parties are flirting with withdrawal. It feels like Brexit déjà vu, with the same hollow promises of taking back control, the same disregard for facts and the same blindness to consequence. The siren voices who said leaving the EU would be easy are now saying the same about leaving the ECHR, and thereby the Council of Europe.

Lord Wolfson’s recent report to the Conservative leader, for example, offers a threadbare fig leaf, based on an extremely narrow reading of the law that downplays the legal obstacles and, by his own admission, ignores the political ones. As Lord Wolfson knows, withdrawal would not be a technical exercise in legislative drafting, but a rupture in the constitutional fabric that binds these islands together. Reform, not rupture, should be our guiding principle; the convention can be updated to serve a modern democracy without sacrificing its founding principles.

Two practical measures would command broad support. First, the UK could lead efforts to clarify the scope of key provisions, particularly article 8, so that domestic courts can apply them with greater predictability and closer regard to parliamentary intent. Secondly, rather than withdrawing, we could work with other Council of Europe members to update the living instrument doctrine, ensuring that the Court’s interpretation better reflects democratic consent and contemporary realities. Those would be acts not of retreat, but leadership, strengthening Britain’s international role as a principled champion of the rule of law.

Despite what Lord Wolfson says, there are serious legal barriers to withdrawal. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on Northern Ireland, I must warn of the profound risks to peace at home. The ECHR is embedded in the Scotland Act 1998, the Wales Act 2017, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Good Friday agreement. Removing it would require overhauling devolution and entail legislative chaos. Turning to Northern Ireland, withdrawal would breach our international commitments, destabilise all communities, betray those who built peace and force renegotiation of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement.

I say this to the Tories, Reform and the Labour leadership: flirting with populism for political convenience endangers both our unity at home and our reputation abroad. As Brexit has shown, dismantling international commitments might sound easy and liberating—but, as we know to our cost, it is neither. It is a hugely damaging, expensive diversion that will only make our problems worse.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Well done for sticking to time.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

My hon. and learned Friend has listed a number of very good examples of what has been achieved as a result of the ECHR. Does he agree that we need to work together to highlight its benefits, as opposed to seeking to tear it down or tear it apart?

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Can the hon. and learned Gentleman conclude in 30 seconds, because there is no additional time for interventions?

[Tony Vaughan]

I will conclude by saying that, on this 75th anniversary, 300 organisations—from Liberty to Mind, Shelter to Amnesty—rightly defend the convention. It is up to this Government to demonstrate to the public that we can have both border control and compassion. Let us celebrate 75 years of freedom, and 75 more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Linsey Farnsworth]

rose—

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman is not taking that intervention, so let us continue.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman is not giving way. Members may disagree with what he is saying, but we will conduct this debate in an orderly way.

[Rupert Lowe]

What about the human rights of the British people? They have the right not to be raped, stabbed and killed by foreigners who should never have been in our country to begin with. Please spare me the continued moral outrage.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

On a point of order, Mr Mundell. The hon. Gentleman just mentioned that—

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I already know that is not a point of order in relation to the content of the hon. Gentleman’s speech.

[Rupert Lowe]

Please spare me the continued moral outrage. I am bored of it. The British people are bored of it. It is not cruel to deport criminals, and it is not inhumane to defend our own citizens. What is cruel and inhumane is allowing foreign killers and sex offenders to walk among us in the name of the human rights they should have forfeited the moment they committed their crimes. Hon. Members can sit here and persuade themselves otherwise, but one simple fact remains: the British people want those people gone—not some of them, not most of them, but all of them. What happens on their return to their own country is quite simply not our problem.

The solution is to take three straightforward steps. Step one: we should leave the ECHR and remove all other legal obstacles to mass deportation—Restore Britain’s new 100-plus page policy document proves it can be done. Step two—

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. You have had your three minutes.

[Rupert Lowe]

The interventions held me up, Mr Mundell.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

You did not take any interventions.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) on securing this important debate. As a fellow delegate to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I can personally attest to her dedication in this area.

I want to bring a Cornish perspective to the importance of the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights—one that shines a light on our membership. First, the framework convention for the protection of national minorities, although less well known than the European convention on human rights, is one of the most comprehensive treaties to protect the rights of national minorities, including the Cornish people. Leaving the European convention on human rights would call into question our membership of the Council of Europe. Those who wish for that departure either have not considered the implications for Cornish national minority status, or they have considered those implications and do not care about the Cornish.

There is also the European charter for regional or minority languages, which protects, supports and encourages minority languages such as Cornish, or Kernewek. These are important commitments to which the UK is a signatory. They are too often considered secondary, but they bring tangible social and cultural benefits to the people of Cornwall. If we lived in a world governed by the parties that wish to leave the European convention on human rights, we would risk leaving the Council of Europe altogether. Any move to withdraw from the European convention on human rights would likely cause us to leave the Council of Europe, putting at risk the protections and benefits on which Cornish people rely under those other conventions.

In his ten-minute rule Bill last week, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is regrettably not here today—I notified him that I was going to raise this—described leaving the European convention on human rights as “unfinished business.” Having played a key role in the economic damage caused by Brexit, it seems that he is back for more, determined to sever another vital limb of our international partnerships as he attempts to steer the country on to the rocks of isolationism.

Some voices on the right argue that basic human rights hold us back. I believe they do quite the opposite. The hon. Member for Clacton will not talk about the other guarantees under the European convention on human rights: the right to life, the right to be free from torture and the right to liberty. As has been mentioned, bodies such as the Bonavero Institute at Oxford University have rightly said that some of the commentary on the European convention on human rights is misleading, often based on incendiary anecdotes involving chicken nuggets and pet cats. In reality, court rulings are far more complicated.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. Thank you, Mr Moon.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) on securing this debate.

When politicians such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), Conservative Members or, indeed, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) want us to leave the European convention on human rights, it tells us something quite reassuring, which is that the ECHR is doing precisely the job it was designed to do to protect all of us from the whims of tinpot populists like the hon. Member for Clacton. When parties such as Reform, and indeed the Conservative party, rail against the ECHR, it tells us everything we need to know about why it is so desperately required.

Those politicians want to remove our basic rights in order to leave the disadvantaged unprotected and their authoritarian tendencies unchallenged. It is in situations like this, when our human rights are most under attack, that we must redouble our efforts to ensure that they are preserved. Let us remind ourselves of the company that the hon. Member for Clacton wants to keep: Russia and Belarus—perhaps that should not surprise us either. He spends half his time as an apologist for the Kremlin, and he has the slight inconvenience of his party’s treasurer in Wales having been found guilty of taking bribes from Russian interests.

Let us remind ourselves what this is all about. The ECHR was created from the ashes of the second world war. It was designed to ensure that the atrocities of that dark time could never be repeated. It enshrines our freedoms of speech, to assemble, to worship, to protest and to live our private lives free from interference, and it is a living instrument that evolves as our society evolves. It is everything that the populists despise. Most of the time, we are not aware of the ECHR—most of our constituents probably do not know what is actually in the document—but it is always there, guaranteeing our freedoms and our rights. It does not seek attention; it simply ensures that the Government—any Government—act in a way that respects our rights. It is our silent guardian.

Leaving the ECHR will not stop the boats or allow the Government to deport masses of our fellow citizens, but it will tear holes in our domestic law. Since 1980, the European Court of Human Rights has found against the UK in just 13 cases, only four of them concerning family life. But those politicians do not just want to leave the ECHR; they want to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 as well. They would seek to abolish its 16 core protections, leaving the UK as about the only country with no chapter on human rights.

I say this to Labour Members: instead of fully defending the ECHR, the Government accept the premise that there is something wrong with it—that it needs to be amended and made compliant with Government interests. They talk about article 8 as being redefined—

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Order. Thank you, Mr Wishart.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Sincere apologies to everyone I was not able to call. We now come to the Lib Dem spokesman, who has five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will not, because time is very limited.

Yet Churchill had the foresight to say, on Europe:

“We help, we dedicate, we play a part, but we are not merged with and do not forfeit our insular or Commonwealth character…we are a separate—and specially-related ally and friend.”

I agree with Churchill. I believe in a Britain that co-operates, not a Britain that is subordinate to foreign judges and international bodies with no democratic accountability.

Those who claim that by leaving the ECHR we are somehow rolling back on human rights do a disservice to their ancestors, for Britain’s commitment to human liberty did not begin in 1950. It began centuries earlier—800 years before the convention was drafted, there was the principle of habeas corpus. Two decades before common-law courts were housed in the very hall in which we are having this debate today, Magna Carta of 1215 reaffirmed:

“No free man shall be…imprisoned…except by the lawful judgement of his peers and the law of the land.”

We produced, in succession, the Petition of Right in 1628, the Habeas Corpus Act in 1679 and the Bill of Rights in 1689, among a long list of other achievements.

We were the first nation in history that not only abolished slavery at home but dedicated the full force of our political, military and economic might to its global abolition. The crowning achievement was the island nation’s establishment of the premise of parliamentary sovereignty under a constitutional monarchy, which has been the envy of nations around the world.

Those achievements were not bestowed upon us by foreign courts or organisations. On the contrary, it was because of these British achievements that the ECHR came into existence, to instil in the nations of Europe that lacked such traditions the same freedoms that Britons had been enjoying for centuries. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) introduced a Bill proposing our withdrawal from the European convention on human rights, which I was proud to sponsor.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked Lord Wolfson to conduct a thorough legal analysis of whether the United Kingdom can properly govern itself while remaining in the ECHR, with five core tests. It clearly indicated that the ability of the Government to control borders, to protect veterans from vexatious pursuit, to ensure that British citizens have priority in public services and to uphold Parliament’s decisions on sentencing and other matters without endless legal obstruction is significantly constrained by our ECHR membership. So a future Conservative Government will withdraw from the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act, so that the elected Government of the day can implement policies supported by the British people in a democratic election and uphold and strengthen human rights protections through our common law tradition, just as sovereign democracies such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand do, based on institutions and principles that originate from this very nation.

This is about democracy. It is this Parliament that should decide, not international bureaucrats or international judges—it is the British people, via a sovereign Parliament. That is the entire history of this country, and to jettison and give away that power is a shameful negation of the democratic birthright of the United Kingdom.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Minister, the proceedings are due to conclude at 6.30 pm. You may wish to give Ms Eccles a few moments to wind up the debate.

Official Development Assistance Reductions

David Mundell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Chair of the International Development Committee, because I want to refer to one or two things that the Committee has been doing. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing the debate.

Given that this is a major change in Government policy, there has been very little debate in Parliament about it. I fear, though, that we will not be able to secure an increase in spending unless we can increase public support for development. Those of us who have been committed to development have to concede that we have been complacent in thinking that that support would automatically be there, and that people would see good for what it is. That is not the case. As I think most Members would recognise from their mailbags, when this change was made there was very little public reaction.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The right hon. Member hits on a very important point. There is not much wider public support, for two big reasons: corruption in some of the countries to which aid is going, and the misappropriation of food and other produce that is delivered. Until we address those issues, we will face an uphill battle in getting public support in the UK for more money.

[David Mundell]

That is partly right, because negative stories have prevailed and we have not had people on the other side rebutting them, as we have not had advocates on the ground. I feel that many non-governmental organisations became far too corporate in their approach: they did not have the local people who were able and willing to collect money or to stand up and make the case in their community environments.

The International Development Committee has visited the US, to try to find out what is happening there. One of the great ironies is that—subject to the budget currently being frozen—it looks as though the US cuts will be less than the cuts in the UK, because various interests in the US have pushed back on them. There is no doubt that what is happening in the US will significantly affect the global development structures, and we must react to that. We cannot simply say, “We want to go back to 0.7%, and it will all be all right.” That is not the world we are in.

We will have to demonstrate specific things that the UK can contribute in a leadership capacity. For example, we have heard that the US will not be funding any family-planning activity or LGBT activity, so others will have to step up in a strategic and co-ordinated way. Whether it is our Government, other Governments or philanthropists, we must find a co-ordinated way of doing this.

We must also look at how we can deliver most effectively with the reduced funding that we have. As the hon. Member for Rotherham knows, I have been a strong advocate for nutrition. One of the biggest disappointments to me of late has been that, after the International Development Committee conducted an inquiry into sustainable development goal 2, we received a very, very poor response from the Government. I accept that it took place during a period of change, but there was nothing concrete in the response. In fact, there was less in it than what was said a few months ago at the nutrition for growth summit in Paris.

It seems to me that the Government embarked on these cuts without a strategy. We might disagree with the strategy in the US, but at least there was one: there was a clear objective, and it took certain actions to pursue it. I am not aware of any clear strategy being pursued in the UK.

Finally, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV/AIDS, I want to make a pitch for the Global Fund. The Global Fund has been a huge success in combating HIV and AIDS, and I hope that the Government can proceed with a replenishment of £1 billion. I campaigned against my own Government to get £1 billion last time, and it would be very disappointing to find an incoming Labour Government cutting that.

Sudan: Protection of Civilians

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I assure my hon. Friend that we take these issues very seriously. We take allegations that any UK-made equipment may have been transferred to Sudan in breach of the UK arms embargo very seriously. That reflects the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. The UK has one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the world. We constantly assess our licences for the risk of diversion and we regularly prevent exports that might be diverted to an undesirable end user or end use. We are aware of reports of a small number of UK-made items having been found in Sudan, but there is no evidence in the recent reporting of UK weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan. I will keep these matters under close review.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker, as you have done with a number of others, but this important issue should not have to come to the Floor of the House by way of an urgent question. The Government must be more proactive. The Minister for Africa gave a commitment to the International Development Committee that they would be more proactive during this Parliament, and I hope that that commitment will be honoured. Will the Minister set out more fully what discussions there have been with the UAE? Not only are there concerns about the use of weapons, but it is clear that the UAE has significant influence over the RSF and is a key player. It is stated by the Government that we have influence with the UAE, so are we using that influence to ensure that it uses its influence with the RSF?

[Stephen Doughty]

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s comments and will ensure that my colleague in the other place is aware of them. We are actively engaged on this matter. Our teams, our officials and our special representative are working on this issue every day, so I do not want him to think that we do not take it serious—we absolutely do, particularly in light of the new allegations that have been made in recent days. We are the third biggest donor and the penholder, and we have been showing leadership on the issue over the past year and before that, including under the Government in which he served, as he knows.

The right hon. Gentleman asks about the Quad and the UAE. We welcome the efforts of the US-led Quad in seeking a resolution to the conflict. He will know that the Quad issued a statement on 12 September, which was a significant development, but we remain in close contact with all the relevant stakeholders and parties in pushing for a humanitarian pause, a wider ceasefire and a Sudanese-led political transition. We will continue to support Quad efforts in that regard, including through our role at the UN Security Council.

Middle East

David Mundell Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he specifically raised delivery of aid in his discussions with his US counterparts? The United States is a hugely important actor in that regard: it has the potential to be positive in improving the existing arrangements, but it also has the potential to be a blocker. His interaction with the US can make the difference.

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise the experience that the right hon. Gentleman brings to the Chamber. He will have heard the Prime Minister raise those issues with President Trump in Scotland, and I reassure him that I raised them with Vice President Vance in Kent. I got into a slight problem with a certain sort of fishing licence, but I did raise those issues as well.

Middle East

David Mundell Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I am aiming to finish this statement at around a quarter to 8. Given the length of questions, Members will be able to see that not everybody will get in.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Everybody condemns the deaths as people queue for aid, but this aid system that was enforced is only possible because of the support of the United States in its delivery—so what is the Foreign Secretary doing to persuade the United States that this is not the way to deliver aid into Gaza?

[Mr Lammy]

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I have made representations to Secretary of State Rubio about my concerns with the aid system. I have done that alongside many European Foreign Ministers and members of the G7.

USAID Funding Pause

David Mundell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I declare my interest as co-chair of both the APPG on nutrition for development and the APPG on HIV, AIDS and sexual health.

This is a period of great uncertainty, not just because of what has happened in the US, but because of what is happening in the UK. Perhaps this debate is a couple of days early, because when the new Minister for International Development, Baroness Chapman of Darlington, appeared before the International Development Committee, everything was predicated on the spending review. Indeed, the Committee had to send back the Government’s response to our inquiry on hunger and sustainable development goal 2 because there was no substance in the reply, since everything was predicated on the outcome of the spending review.

I hope that tomorrow we will get certainty. I do not expect the Minister to be able to advance anything specific today, but it is important that we have that certainty, because uncertainty is one of the worst features affecting our ability to plan and to combat the issues that we face globally. Obviously, the US has contributed enormously to that uncertainty. It is still not clear what is happening in the US, and that is why I welcome the fact that the International Development Committee will soon visit Washington and New York. It will be a fact-finding visit, so that we can ascertain exactly what the approach is, and whether Mr Musk’s departure means anything for how these matters will be dealt with.

I do not want to dwell too much on regret about the American situation. I think that we have to move on, as others have said, to a new debate about the future model of development. The Government, through the Minister for International Development, have indicated that that is their view, but again, there have not been many clues as to exactly what that might mean. We have heard about a realignment of existing multilateral organisations; it is not clear to me what that means. What I am clear on is that the UK should continue to contribute significantly to Gavi, the Global Fund and Unitaid, because those are multilateral organisations that deliver on their own specific objectives but also provide a backbone for health services in many poorer countries. Without those interventions, there would not be a health service being offered at all, so it is vital that we continue.

Cutting mid-way through programmes is always chaotic. One of the most shocking things that I heard in recent evidence to the International Development Committee was about a US cut during the overwhelming of Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We heard that the radio system, which was operated by volunteers, had to be switched off during that attack. That meant that people could not hear where the attack was coming from and where to go to be safe. I think that everybody who heard that evidence, from the guy who had to do that, understood how hard it was—and it was the direct consequence of a cut.

I want to focus on nutrition and give some key facts. A billion women and girls suffer from malnutrition, which impacts their health, productivity and economic futures. Malnutrition is a leading killer, responsible for one in five maternal deaths and nearly half of child deaths under the age of five. Malnutrition costs the global economy more than $1.6 trillion annually in lost productivity and potential. US aid cuts could lead to 1 million children with severe and acute malnutrition losing access to treatment annually. But it can be—and it has been—different. We know that for every $1 invested, $23 is returned to the local economy. Investing in nutrition is not charity, and it is not even the moral thing to do; it is a strategic decision and investment, and the UK, US and other funders should continue to do it.

The UK Government are being asked to invest £50 million in the child nutrition fund. The UK has historically been a leader in the funding of child nutrition interventions. In both 2022 and 2023, the UK committed £6 million to the fund, which has high-impact, cost-effective malnutrition solutions. With the funding crisis caused by US cuts, the ask is now £50 million.

I hope that on the IDC’s visit to the US, we will find out more about what is happening with HIV/AIDS, because there are competing suggestions about whether the US will return to funding. The hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) alluded to women and girls; one of the most important messages we have to get across is that in sub-Saharan Africa, it is women and girls who are most affected by HIV, and it is important to continue funding there.

I also agree with the hon. Member about the importance of science and innovation as we move forward in this new development world. I had the opportunity to visit the John Innes Centre outside Norwich, as well as Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, where a huge amount of research is going ahead. The research and scientific leadership that the UK can offer might be the replacement for the financial leadership we offered in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is indeed an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for securing this important debate.

Since the new US Administration took office in January, President Trump and Elon Musk have gutted USAID—the world’s foremost dispenser of humanitarian funding and expertise, through which America saved the lives of many of the world’s poorest people. Trump’s budget proposals to Congress for the coming fiscal year reduce foreign assistance spend by almost 85%, all while the need for it increases. In a deadly year, when 120 armed conflicts raging across the globe, the number of people suffering from acute food insecurity has nearly tripled in six years, from 135 million in 2019 to 340 million today. The nation that previously built development’s architecture has largely disappeared almost overnight. There is an urgent need for someone to step up and assume the convening and facilitating role that America once played. Many looked to Britain, and in that month, when we all held our breath, we were blindsided instead by this Labour Government cutting development spending to its lowest level this century.

It is difficult to fully comprehend the scale of the cuts to USAID or their impact. In 2024, America spent roughly $70 billion on international development. Its contribution represented 40% of all humanitarian aid recorded that year. But it is not just the money. Every other country, international NGO and development body relies on the humanitarian architecture that America built and supported. It was America that funded much of the most valuable data collection, which determined where other countries directed their resources. NGOs I have spoken to explained how American-funded analysis often provided the early warning system for looming hunger crises. Frequently it was money from the Americans that paid the administrative costs and overheads of NGOs working on the ground. That has been dismantled.

The world is already paying a heavy price for Trump’s and Musk’s decision to break American development leadership. Since the cuts, Boston University has been running a mathematical model of their likely toll. The model estimates that more than 300,000 people have died already, two thirds of them children. Every hour, the model believes, around another 100 people die. One can watch the number tick up almost in real time. A leaked memo originating with USAID estimated that the cuts would result in 200,000 children each year being paralysed by polio, that 1 million cases of severe acute malnutrition, which often results in death, would go untreated and that malaria would claim an additional 166,000 lives. There is a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding before our eyes. Millions of the world’s poorest people, including the poorest children, have lost lifesaving medical care because of those cuts.

Perhaps the heaviest blow of all has fallen upon the global effort to fight HIV and AIDS. The President’s emergency plan for AIDS relief, credited with saving 26 million lives in the last two decades, received a 90-day stop work order in January. The Trump Administration have now asked Congress to claw back money, some already allocated to PEPFAR. As a result, the global HIV response has been severely disrupted. Modelling by the Burnet Institute estimates that it will result in a 25% drop in funding for the global HIV response, and as many as 2.9 million excess HIV-related deaths by 2030.

[David Mundell]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments. It is very important we emphasise that it is women and girls who will be most affected by those cuts. It is not those stereotypes sometimes presented by some in the US who are affected; it is women and girls.

[Monica Harding]

The right hon. Member makes an excellent point, which I will come to later.

USAID modelling suggests that the actions of Trump and Musk could result in 28,000 new cases of infectious diseases, such as Ebola, each year. When Ebola ripped through west Africa a decade ago, it had a case fatality of around 40%. It was kept from our shores thanks to a global response in which America and Britain played crucial roles. When we step back from funding and supporting global health initiatives, we put ourselves at risk. I repeat the Liberal Democrats’ call for the Government to reaffirm our commitment to the replenishment of Gavi and the Global Fund, because it is the right thing to do for British interests.

There is some hope. The situation is still fluid, and I urge the Government to impress upon the US Administration the moral and strategic imperative for development. Meanwhile, the US Administration have emphasised that America will continue to provide humanitarian aid and respond to disasters, at least to a degree. That is welcome, but if the funding is to be effective it must be provided in accordance with foundational humanitarian principles: impartiality, neutrality and independence. Israel’s Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an American-backed scheme, disregards those principles. In consequence, it is dangerous, unworkable and profoundly insufficient. I hope the Minister takes this opportunity to affirm Britain’s commitment to those principles and to all allies, and to urge American counterparts to do the same.

The decisions taken by the US Administration to slash and gut USAID are profoundly depressing; that our Government have followed their lead is even more so. Britain is withdrawing when our voice is needed more than ever. The slashed UK aid budget cannot fulfil our commitments. We hear that Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine are ringfenced. In the absence of the US, we wonder about those other humanitarian hotspots: Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, DRC, Nigeria, Myanmar, South Sudan, Mali, Haiti and Bangladesh.

We hear that our Government’s priorities are conflict, climate change and health. What about women and girls, nutrition and education? At the same time, the Government toy with rhetoric and framing borrowed from the Trump playbook, saying that Britain is no longer a charity. Let us be clear and united: development serves British interests. It is not charity or a giant cash dispenser in the sky, but a deposit account for our safety and security. That is because funding global health is better than battling a pandemic; supporting peacebuilding is cheaper than fighting a war, or dealing with the terrorism that emerges out of instability; and aid in economic development and climate mitigation are better than coping with mass displacement and channel crossings.

Every crisis creates opportunities, and the American withdrawal is no different. While the USA dismantles overseas assistance—ripping out 85% of it, and the plumbing, too—Britain must use its tradition of leadership and step forward as a convening power, with bold and brave thinking and a long-term vision for aid, starting by laying out a road map for returning to 0.7% of GNI, as we are required to do by statute. That law has not changed. I worry about the Government’s failure to square that with the notoriously generous British public. The impact of the UK aid cut, alongside the US cut, has not been made clear. It will mean hundreds of thousands of lives lost worldwide.

Instead of short-term decision making and chasing domestic headlines, we must invest in a long-term vision for Britain and security for our future. We have yet to see any script from the Government on what Britain is for. How we behave now will define how we are seen on the world stage. We still have a seat at the table and we may say that we still have the expertise to lead, but if money does not follow, it would be arrogant to assume that we will keep that seat. Britain is compassionate. We do not have to follow America blindly; we can use our proud and long tradition in development and aid, look outwards and lead.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

David Mundell Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

I reject the assertion that patients will shop around. Bearing in mind that we are talking about dying people, they are not in a position to start shopping around for services, but I also agree that the Bill is strict in that regard. There are very strict protocols that doctors will have to follow.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will just make some progress, if I may.

It is about not just patient choice but choice for professional people, too. We know there are a range of views on assisted dying across a range of professions. I have always been clear that no one who is uncomfortable taking part should have to, and nor should there be any detriment to anyone, whatever choice they make in whatever role they have.

Gavi and the Global Fund

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I am grateful to you for stepping into the Chair, Ms Jardine. I was due to chair this debate, but that would have meant that I was unable to contribute, which I very much wanted to do.

Given the restricted time, I do not want to rehearse the discussions that we had with Baroness Chapman in the International Development Committee earlier in the week. Like the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), whom I congratulate on securing the debate, I want to say that a contribution to Gavi and the Global Fund is not charity but a strategic investment by the United Kingdom. Although we have to deal with the reality that, as Baroness Chapman set out, the cuts are happening, we have to make the case about what should happen in that environment. I have always believed that aid spending should have maximum impact and maximum returns. Moreover, it should be in keeping with public expectations of food in bellies and shots in arms, and the Global Fund and Gavi deliver both.

As the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) said, Gavi has immunised more than 1 billion children, reducing vaccine-preventable child deaths by 70% in the 78 low-income countries in which it operates. That is 18.8 million lives saved and children growing up healthy, going to school and contributing to their communities, which is a huge impact. The Global Fund has saved an estimated 65 million lives since 2002. It has cut the combined death rate from AIDS, TB and malaria by 61%. These are staggering achievements and they should not be discounted.

Gavi and the Global Fund are two of the most successful and impactful health programmes in history. They clearly meet the requirement for maximum impact and return, but they are possible only because of sustained, co-ordinated international investment. Alongside Unitaid, they are part of a habitat of organisations that have sustained progress in our understanding of diseases, and our ability to deploy medicines and improve health systems.

I join the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central in encouraging the Minister to sustain the existing contributions to both Gavi and the Global Fund. He will be aware that in the last Parliament, I lobbied my own Government very hard to get that £1 billion into the Global Fund. Let us keep it at that at least, and keep the contribution to Gavi. These programmes make a difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Jardine, and to respond to such a passionate and well-attended debate on a subject that many Members here in Westminster Hall today know is close to my heart.

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for securing this debate. Of course, as well as being an excellent representative for Milton Keynes, she has many connections with me and with my constituency in Penarth, and I have connections with Milton Keynes that link to the subject of this debate, because it was in Milton Keynes that I first worked for World Vision, the international humanitarian and development NGO.

At that time, I worked in particular on ] issues related to HIV and AIDS. On a visit to Malawi with World Vision back in the early 2000s—they were very different times, when we had not made the progress that we have made today—I saw for myself the devastating impact that HIV and AIDS had on communities in southern Africa. I remember sitting in a village with a woman who had had to take on the care of her sister’s children after her sister had died in her 20s. She had already been struggling to make ends meet, but then took on the children of her sibling on top of that. That was really stark stuff that I will never forget.

I have worked on these issues throughout my career. Indeed, I was at one of the early launches of the IFFIm bonds with Gordon Brown and at many of the other events and efforts organised by the last Labour Government that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central rightly said we should be very proud of. I also served as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, and it is fantastic to see some of my successors in that role here in Westminster Hall today. That APPG is one of Parliament’s longest-established APPGs and I can genuinely say that it has also been one of the most impactful over many decades, and is still doing important work today.

This is absolutely a timely moment to debate these issues, with the Gavi and Global Fund replenishments coming up later this year, and I am hugely grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members here today for their contributions. I can absolutely assure them that the Government hears those communications and that they will be communicated to Minister Chapman, my colleague in the other place. We will look very closely at a number of the points that have been raised today.

We should be very proud of our remarkable achievements over the last 20 years and we must maintain that positive trajectory, which includes increasing life expectancy and stopping the spread of pandemics. As has been said many times, disease respects no borders, and of course it has a devastating impact, not only on lives but on economies. Of course, the life-saving research to fight disease also has a benefit economically, as many hon. Members have already pointed out.

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

I can confirm, Dr Huq, that the UK will continue to champion global health, with the sustainable development goals as our lodestar and anchoring our work. Our partnerships with Gavi and the Global Fund are crucial to maintaining—indeed, to accelerating—progress. Of course, we are founding members and committed supporters of both organisations.

The Global Fund plays a crucial role, and I have worked with it many times on strengthening health systems and combating HIV and AIDs, tuberculosis and malaria. Of course, it also supports the UK’s goal to end all new HIV cases in England by 2030 and efforts across the United Kingdom to end new HIV infection. Malaria, which has been rightly referred to today, primarily affects women and children. It puts a significant strain on health systems and hinders economic growth. Nigeria, for example, accounts for more than a quarter of global malaria cases and loses more than $8 billion annually to the disease. There is also the devastating impact on lives and families. Our partnership with the Global Fund demonstrates the importance we place on working in partnership with others around the world and in the global south. Together we have saved a remarkable 65 million lives and reduced AIDS, TB and malaria deaths by more than 60%. We have also built more resilient and sustainable health systems and accelerated progress towards universal healthcare coverage.

Gavi is a hugely important organisation whose work I have had the pleasure of seeing in this country and elsewhere. It is of course a public-private partnership with national Governments, the World Health Organisation, UNICEF and civil society, which is critical. Many Members mentioned those connections in procuring and providing affordable vaccines. Through Gavi, more than half the world’s children are now vaccinated against some of the world’s deadliest diseases, such as measles, malaria and meningitis, saving more than 18 million lives. It has been pointed out that a child born in a Gavi-supported country today is 70% less likely to die from a vaccine-preventable disease before their fifth birthday than a child born before that crucial alliance came into existence.

Every investment brings economic benefits, too. For every £1 of investment in immunisation, we see £54 in wider economic benefits. We are working with Gavi and other donors, including the Gates Foundation, to reach more children with lifesaving vaccines than ever before. Investments in Gavi and the Global Fund also drive real innovation. British expertise has transformed the fight against HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria through licensing and technology transfer, and by developing innovative technologies such as new dual active ingredient bed nets, which were piloted with support from Unitaid and the Global Fund and are now being rolled out at scale by the Global Fund.

Investment has also supported the development of vaccines such as MenFive to protect against the five main types of meningitis. Gavi delivered 5.1 million doses of MenFive in Niger and Nigeria.

[David Mundell]

The Minister made a passing reference, as other Members did, to Unitaid. Will he more formally acknowledge the huge importance of Unitaid in ensuring the delivery of medicines in some of the most difficult environments around the world?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely will. It is referenced throughout my briefings because of the important partnership and contacts that we have with Unitaid. I have seen its work as well.

We are delighted to be co-hosting the Global Fund’s eighth replenishment with South Africa. We aim to attract and deepen investor engagement, sustain collective investments, and collaborate with the private sector on financing, innovation and supply chain support. We will do everything possible to ensure the success of that replenishment. Last month, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation made an impressive first pledge of $150 million, a fivefold increase of its previous investment. That extraordinary commitment underscores the significant role of private philanthropy in advancing global health equity and highlights the power of partnership. As countries work to increase domestic financing, we must stand together and strive for success in those replenishments. We know this is an incredibly important moment for all these issues.

Many Members have rightly asked me about financial commitments—I have heard the voices around this room. Members will understand that we cannot make any financial commitments for the next replenishment until after the spending review is complete, but I assure them that we will continue to champion the Global Fund and Gavi and the people they serve, as well as the issues that have been raised today. Members’ voices and those of their constituents have been heard. None of us want to make decisions about cuts to the ODA budget, not least because of our record of success on these issues, but when I look at some of the things I do every day, I can say that they are the right choices, although difficult. We remain committed, however, to international development and particularly to global health. The number of interventions on these issues have made that very clear across the House.

I will reply briefly to some specific points made. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central spoke about the wider benefits not only to the economy, but in terms of our research and the links to the covid vaccine research. I saw some of the pioneering RNA vaccine research in visits with the all-party group years ago. To then see that expertise used to combat a deadly pandemic was extraordinary.

The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)—my successor on the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health—rightly talked about this being investment, not charity. I think there is a consensus across the House on the proven track record of the Global Fund, Gavi and Unitaid.

My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) mentioned his visit to Kenya and the links with nutrition as well. He knows the Government’s commitment to the global compact on nutrition and the work that was done around the summit and indeed the research in his own constituency. I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for her contribution. Her constituency is a place I know well, having done my masters at the University of St Andrews. Important work is being done at that university and at many institutions across the UK.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) asked important questions about women and girls. I can assure her that women and girls remain at the heart of our global health work. Gavi supports countries with vaccines that directly benefit girls and women, for example those against HPV, which we know is one of the leading causes of cervical cancer. Shockingly, over 85% of cervical cancer deaths are in low-income countries, and it is the main cause of death among many young women in Africa. Women and girls therefore remain at the heart of these partnerships going forward.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer here, as ever spoke passionately on the issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) spoke about the importance of work on TB. We are absolutely committed to this, whether through the Global Fund, Stop TB Partnership or our work with the TB Alliance. We are doing many pieces of research and operations work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) spoke about malaria, as did others. On that, there is really remarkable process being made on vaccines. Some of the early findings from the malaria vaccine implementation programme show that an additional one in eight children can be prevented from dying if they receive vaccines in combination with other malaria interventions. We are carrying on the important work on anti-malarial bed nets and other interventions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne), another of my successors in the APPG on HIV/AIDS, again spoke of the importance of the Global Fund, and I completely agree with him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke about her experience working at the Francis Crick Institute, another leading institution doing incredible work. We should be very proud of our academics and researchers in this country for what they do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), a powerful voice for his constituents, also spoke of his own personal experiences in sub-Saharan Africa.

Middle East Update

David Mundell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I recognise the passion in my hon. Friend’s voice, and as he knows, it is not just at this Dispatch Box that we have set out our views. He asks for widespread sanctions. Of course, as the House knows, we have imposed sanctions on violent settlers, and we have suspended arms licences, according to a careful process and having looked at the risks to international humanitarian law. We will continue to take action across the full range of our diplomatic options, and not just at this Dispatch Box, as he would expect.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

What dialogue is ongoing with Egypt at this time? There are concerns about the pressure on Egypt, not just from the situation in Gaza and its obvious interest in the Rafah crossing, but in the south from the conflict in Sudan. Egypt remains an important party in getting to a resolution. What is the Government’s current dialogue with and support for Egypt?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his important question. Of course the conflict affects not just Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories but many of its neighbours, including Egypt. I confirm that the Government have been in regular dialogue with their Egyptian counterparts, and I have an upcoming exchange with one of my Egyptian counterparts on exactly these questions.

London Sudan Conference

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the London Sudan conference.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

Co-hosted with the African Union, the EU, France and Germany, the London Sudan conference convened Foreign Ministers, major donors and humanitarian leaders to galvanise co-ordinated international action on the conflict. Discussions focused on ensuring humanitarian access, protecting civilians and supporting a Sudanese-led peace process that preserves Sudan’s territorial integrity. A co-chairs’ statement set out the shared principles of an immediate ceasefire, rejection of external interference, opposition to parallel Governments, a return to a civilian-led transition and a principled approach to full, unimpeded humanitarian access.

Although this was not a pledging conference, international partners did announce over £800 million of support to address the humanitarian situation. This includes a further £120 million in UK aid for this year, which will reach over 650,000 people with food, nutrition support and emergency assistance, including for survivors of sexual violence. It follows our sustained push to ensure aid reaches those in need, including through access corridors such as the Adré crossing from Chad.

The UK will continue to lead international efforts to end the conflict in Sudan. Our immediate goals are clear: to bring an end to this destructive war, to protect civilians and to get aid to where it is needed most. Our vision for Sudan is to work with the Sudanese people and international partners to deliver the democratic and peaceful future that they deserve.

[David Mundell]

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. It is so important that we shine a light on this conflict, which is the worst humanitarian crisis in the world at this time. Sudan is experiencing the most extreme hunger crisis. Conflict-related famine, mass displacement, and extreme and sexual violence and killings continue to devastate millions of people. About half the population—24.5 million people—are experiencing acute food insecurity, with 650,000 facing catastrophic hunger. The conflict has led to an unprecedented displacement, with 8.6 million people internally displaced since the start of the conflict and nearly 4 million people forced to flee across borders.

Unfortunately, the crisis continues to get worse. In recent days, we have seen the Rapid Support Forces attack the Zamzam camp, which housed about 500,000 displaced people, and the Sudanese Government allegedly attack a market in western Darfur, which is speculated to be one of the worst single incidents of the conflict. I share the Minister’s aspirations, as I am sure does the whole House, but we cannot underestimate the scale of the challenge. I was pleased that the Government took part in the conference, but it was very disappointing that it was not possible to get the other participants, particularly the Arab nations, to sign up to an agreement at the end of it. It was also disappointing to find the RSF declaring an alternative Government within a few days of the conference.

What are the Government doing to encourage a greater role for the African Union, particularly in discussions at the United Nations? Generally, there is a view that if the African Union was more involved, it would be more difficult for Russia to veto UN resolutions. Secondly, what are we doing in relation to the United Arab Emirates and its role in the conflict, which has been significant?

[Mr Falconer]

This is a truly tragic sequence of events for the people of Sudan. The right hon. Gentleman has long had an interest and he is right to call me to the House to answer questions. We had hoped that at the conference last week, we would be able to issue a communiqué agreed by all parties. As he identifies, there is a whole range of countries with an interest in Sudan. We are at real risk at the moment not only of a further degradation of the situation for those in Zamzam, northern Darfur and across Sudan, but, as he says, of a declaration of parallel Governments, none of which will lead to the peaceful democratic future that the Sudanese have long hoped for.

The Foreign Secretary took the decision to try for this conference in an attempt to ensure wide agreement among the parties, because he recognises that there must be no hierarchy of conflict. The situation in Sudan is catastrophic and we are making every effort. The conference was the beginning, not the end, of our efforts to try to reduce the suffering in Sudan.