(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberI thank the hon. Member for that point. Many women from all kinds of different ideological perspectives have contributed to this debate, and I thank them.
We should also recognise that some people have also been transphobic. We must be mindful that a lot of trans people feel very vulnerable at this time; some have committed suicide. Can we also hold them in our thoughts in this debate?
I thank the hon. Member for that very nuanced contribution. I also thank her for being the first female of colour at the Dispatch Box, leading the way, and Chairman of a Select Committee. She is someone who all Members of this House, from every party, respect and admire; I thank her for everything she does.
As we try to protect young women and girls, there has been no clearer or more scandalous a failure than the rape gangs scandal that we are confronting now. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) who have raised this matter in Parliament, along with Alex Stafford, who is no longer in this place, and the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson)—a cross-party effort—who have raised this issue time and again, while very few other Members of this House did. I commend them for being brave enough to do so. [Interruption.] Yes, there are so many I am not able to thank today, but I want to recognise them as best as I can. Baroness Casey has said that too many shied away from the issue of ethnicity in the rape gangs scandal. Those hon. Members did not, and that shows real leadership by Members in a cross-party way to protect women and girls.
This International Women’s Day, let us unite in clear determination. Where Nancy Astor led in confronting injustice for the voiceless, the parliamentarians of today will follow. We will speak up for the right of women to women-only spaces. We will make sure that, no matter the community, ethnicity or religion involved, we will never again let a scandal like the rape gangs go unchallenged. As someone who has fought for years for women and girls and fought against sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation, I think that every Member of the House should look at how we can protect women and girls, no matter who or where they are. I believe that is something we can all agree on.
For International Women’s Day to matter, it must be more than symbolic. It must combine celebration with action. It must be a further catalyst for rights, justice and action for women and girls. It must harden our resolve to ensure safety for all women and girls. It must set in clear focus our collective determination that this will be a country in which women and girls from every race, religion and creed are able to contribute their talents, with the certainty that we will keep them safe. For rights, justice and action, our women and girls deserve nothing less.
I thank the inspirational speakers we have heard so far. International Women’s Day feels particularly poignant to me this year, and there are two reasons for that. The first is watching the women in Iran. The reason why this has particularly affected me is because of the six-year fight to bring back my constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, which many Members, including you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will remember. During that time, I encountered the brutality of the Iranian regime whenever we tried to negotiate her return to our country. The way that they treated her was like she was nothing, in all honesty—they attached a worthlessness to her identity.
Now we are watching women fighting just for education and the right to dress the way they want—just for the right to live. Bombing primary schools full of little girls is something that is really hard to fathom. Every morning, no matter what happens, we can wake up feeling very lucky because we know that we can walk to work or get on the tube and we will be safe. Our thoughts today are with the people in Iran who are fighting for justice, especially the women.
The second reason that International Women’s Day feels particularly poignant to me is because of the case I am dealing with of Bright Horizons nursery in my constituency, which some Members will have heard me speak about. Vincent Chan operated for seven years undetected, preying on little girls, toddlers and babies, inflicting pain on them and conducting sexual abuse— something that he had already done in previous workplace. He went undetected and was given a job in a place where parents entrusted staff to look after their children while they were at work.
Parents only found out about the abuse because he had been reported by a brave whistleblower for acts of cruelty towards children—for bullying, not for sexual abuse. It was only when police decided to seize his devices, including nursery iPads, that he was discovered. He had filmed himself committing acts of sexual violence against little girls in the nursery itself, and he had used the iPads to airdrop the images to his own devices. This makes us realise that the fight is not over and that there is so much more work we have to do to combat violence against women and girls. I am pleased to be here today, surrounded by women who have been fighting that fight, and I hope that people like Vincent Chan get justice and end up behind bars.
I want to pay tribute to all the mothers of the children who were affected in the nursery. They have made sure that this will never happen again. They are the ones who are fighting for mandatory CCTV. They are the ones who are fighting to make sure that there is a “two person per child” rule in every room in every nursery. They are the ones who are now fighting for a flare system so that whistleblowing can be done properly and without fear and nurseries are not able to mark their own homework.
However, every time I speak about this case, I make sure that I say that for all the cases of sexual abuse in nurseries and early years settings that have happened, there are hundreds of thousands of other babysitters and nursery staff who look after children day in, day out and make sure that they are loved and protected. We must not tar everyone with the same brush, but we do need to take this seriously, and something does need to be done.
Today I want to talk mainly about my brave constituent Sanju Pal, who is in the Gallery. The focus of the UN for this International Women’s Day is, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said, rights, justice and action. Across the world, women and girls have just 64% of the rights that men have. That is why I want to concentrate on Sanju’s case. Some Members will have heard me mention Sanju before. After six years of fighting a legal battle against her former employer—a management consultancy firm— for unfair dismissal, she won a landmark case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London. Her case sets a legal precedent for endometriosis to be considered a disability under the Equality Act 2010.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will indulge me while I talk about Sanju Pal’s case, because I feel that everyone in this Chamber, and everyone in the world, should listen to what she had to go through. In 2018 Sanju was diagnosed with severe endometriosis, and had large fluid-filled cysts on both her ovaries, requiring an immediate operation. She returned to work a month later in severe pain. She was bleeding and could hardly walk, because she had been pushing herself too much for a promotion to senior manager. She told HR in explicit detail how much pain she was in.
Three months after her phased return to work ended, and without any warning, Sanju was sacked. She was told to leave the building immediately and not to contact anyone. She was told, “Do not contact any of the colleagues you have been working with for 10 years now; just get out and leave the building quietly.” She had worked there for 10 years, and she told me that her entire life was based around her work and making sure that she looked after people she was serving at Accenture.
Sanju was sacked for not being ready for promotion within a required timeframe. This is known as the “up or out” policy, used by many corporates, where employees can be dismissed if their manager believes that they cannot be promoted. The termination letter—which, by the way, she received minutes after that meeting—did not state any actual reason for her dismissal. It also did not inform her of her right to appeal, and nor did it refer to the policy that was being followed.
As a Camden girl through and through, who went to Camden School for Girls, Sanju decided not to take this lying down. She took it to an internal tribunal, and the High Court later found that this panel had completely disregarded what she had written in her impact statement. When she then took it to tribunal, the panel ruled that she had not proved that her illness had an ongoing substantial effect on her daily life, and stated that many women with endometriosis had mild symptoms or none at all. The tribunal rejected her claim for disability discrimination and lacked any understanding of the physical impact of her health condition on her own body. She appealed that decision, and the High Court eventually ruled that she was unfairly dismissed from her job without her employer following a fair capability procedure or providing any reasonable adjustments after she was disabled because of her health condition.
I am so proud of Sanju for her tireless campaigning since her unfair dismissal in 2019. Employers must now follow this judgment on considering endometriosis as a disability and providing reasonable adjustments. More needs to be done to ensure that this does not happen to other women who are left physically disabled by endometriosis and other gynaecological conditions. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) has done some brilliant work in this area for years now, but we need a collective voice. We need everyone in the Chamber to stand up and speak about this, because it has been a taboo for too long now.
It is shocking, if the Minister is listening, that not a single gynaecological condition was introduced into the disability guidance of the Equality Act. That basic change could have saved Sanju her job, as well as so much time, money and anxiety, as she spent six years fighting for this unfair dismissal. It could also have made a huge difference for countless other women whom we have not heard about and who are facing the same discrimination in the workplace across the country. One in 10 women suffer from endometriosis, and 69% of sufferers say that they face discrimination at work. Such cases are far too common, leaving one in six women with endometriosis unemployed because of their condition.
Women should not be forced to go to a tribunal just to get the rights that they deserve. That is why I believe that women with endometriosis should be given specific workplace adjustments and the right to reasonable adjustments for their condition. Alongside that, endometriosis should be listed under reoccurring and fluctuating impairments in the guidance for the Equality Act, so that employers actually understand their legal duty to provide reasonable adjustments to women who are suffering because of the condition.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. You may be coming to this, but it is an incredible—
Order. I do not wish to correct any one of our fantastic female parliamentarians, but “you” means me. One more time: Dawn Butler.
Thank you, and you are amazing, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend may be coming to this, but my friend Elaine Banton was the lawyer in the case she refers to. I want to put that on record alongside my hon. Friend’s excellent remarks about her constituent.
I thank my hon. Friend. Elaine Banton definitely deserves a mention in the workplace as well.
There is a lot more I would like to say about this important case, but I am conscious that many women want to speak. However, I just want to mention that when I was growing up—I grew up in a Muslim Asian household—I did not hear anything about endometriosis. I never heard the word “menopause” when growing up. If I was ever on my period, I was told to quickly move away, listen and change, and make sure that my brother did not hear anything. There is a point at which we need to change that.
My mother was very forward in other ways. Growing up in a Muslim household, on Friday nights we always had dinner with our Jewish neighbours. She was very clear about the fact that in our house we could celebrate Christmas, Eid, Durga Puja and Hanukkah—we could do whatever we wanted because we were citizens of the world. But we were simply not allowed to mention our period, menopause or endometriosis. For Sanju’s case, but also for all the South-Asian mothers who are listening out there, this is the time when we need to break the taboo. We need to talk about conditions that affect women, particularly when they affect young girls as well, so that, if they are affected by those conditions in the workplace, they do not feel ashamed and like they have to hide.
I thank the Government for holding this debate in Government time. I had applied for a Backbench Business debate as a back-up, as I normally do, but now that we have a Labour Government I can probably stop doing that.
I need to apologise for my voice. I was going to blame it on a cold, but actually I was at the Trans Mission concert yesterday at Wembley arena, where I was shouting quite loudly that trans rights are human rights and singing along to Beverley Knight’s “Everything’s Gonna Be Alright.” It reminded me of the saying that everything will be all right in the end; and if it is not all right, it is not the end. Right now, things are not all right for women.
As the Minister stated in her excellent opening speech, women globally are currently at our most vulnerable. It feels worse than it has been in a long time. With the influencers, the brain rot of social media, the increasing lack of legislation around bodily autonomy and, as we have heard many times, men influencing boys on what a perfect woman should be, with detailed instructions on how to abuse women and girls, we as women are in serious danger, and we need protection. International Women’s Day is the day to tell some truths.
For many of us, progress has not been made by us being welcomed in the room; progress has been made by us taking up room. Progress has been made by us taking up space. I thank all the women in my constituency in Brent who have taken up space, even when as women we have been told, “You don’t belong here,” or “They’re letting anyone in nowadays,” which was once said to me by an MP on the Terrace.
That is not the only thing that has been said to me as an MP. I have been told that I am too serious, and that I am not serious enough. I have been told that I need to dress up, and that I need to dress down. I have been told that I should smile more, or that I smile too much; that I am too confident, or I am not confident enough; that I talk about black issues too much, and that I do not talk about black issues enough; and that I talk about women’s issues all the time but do not talk about men’s issues. The reality is, I have been here for all the International Men’s Day debates, when there has been nobody on the Conservative Benches. Nobody can accuse me of not being an equal opportunity debater. The truth is this: you cannot win, and you will never win if you are trying to fit into anyone else’s expectations. Some people try to make you feel so small; they try to strip away who you are, so that you no longer recognise yourself. The hallmark of those people is that they are unhappy in their own life—they often have a small appendix—so they will try to put others down. The worst thing that we can do to ourselves is allow that to happen, because in life, we women need all the strength we can get, just to survive.
After my cancer diagnosis and while writing my book, “A Purposeful Life”, I recall deciding that I wanted to be mayor of London. There were many positive responses to that, for which I am eternally grateful—I will be tapping those people up for the campaign—but they were mixed with responses like, “Oh, there’s never been a black mayor”, “Oh, there’s never been a female mayor”, and, “What makes you think you can do it? What have you done? What have you delivered? It’s a man’s job, isn’t it?”. People said that I should stay in my lane. The truth is, my lane is wherever I say it is. I will slay in my lane, and I will achieve my ambitions.
I have learned something important on my political journey: when we give our voices, our time and our courage, we do not lose; we learn, and we gain. I have gained so much: I have gained friends, knowledge, and the power to change things for the better. I have made it my mission to pave the way for others. I do not always succeed, and sometimes people let you down—that is just life—but sometimes I do succeed. I gave two female MPs in this place their first job in Parliament: my hon. Friend, and dear friend, the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes)—two women who are now doing a phenomenal job for their constituents. That is what can happen when you give; you and others gain.
I know what it feels like not to be taken seriously, and to have my experiences dismissed and my views belittled, and what it is like when people do not recognise the struggle or your greatness, so in this International Women’s Day debate it is time to tell the truth. I have been in many rooms where I have not fitted in, so I have come to accept that, and I have come to embrace standing out. I will wear my bright clothes—the outfit I am wearing today is from Dabra, Madam Deputy Speaker—I smile when I am happy, and I will act confident, even at times when I do not feel confident.
The truth is that when women rise, the system gets better. Women are failed by the system and by some men—and women—time and again, whether it is the courts system or whether it is in Iran, Gaza, Afghanistan, Sudan, the UK or America. Women and girls’ lives are in danger all over the globe. I find it strange that although misogynistic men are part of the biggest, wealthiest paedophile gang that we have ever seen, no one is in prison. Even though the evidence is there in the Epstein files, hardly anyone has been arrested, and where they have been arrested, it is not for raping little girls and teenagers. We should ask ourselves, why is that? How is it that people will protest outside hotels, but not outside the Sandringham estate?
No matter the colour of a person’s skin, or how much money they have in the bank, if they abuse and rape little girls, teenagers or young women, and are part of a grooming gang, large or small, they should be punished, and should be in prison. It is our duty in this place to speak up, and to ensure that paedophiles are punished, without fear or favour. I do not care who they are; I do not care who they are friends with; I do not care if they are royalty; and I do not care if they are influential people. It is time for people to tell the truth, rather than pretending, selectively, that they care about women and girls.
A woman is killed every three days in the UK and every 10 minutes globally. A woman is raped every eight minutes in the UK and every few seconds globally. I want women and girls to be safe, not just in the UK but all around the world. This International Women’s Day, I would love for people to give comfort to the women who are struggling everywhere, whether it is at war or in the workplace. There is no hierarchy of women —none of us is free until we are all free, and none of us is safe until we are all safe. No one knows how strong they are until that is the only thing that they have left, but they should not need to be strong—they should just be safe. It is also true that women of colour are expected to be strong all the time, and we are tired—tired of not being supported, tired of being overlooked, and tired of our pain not being recognised, whether in the UK or globally. As we pour unprecedented amounts of money into artificial intelligence systems that make women’s lives less safe, let us refocus our efforts on protecting women and girls. If our starting point is to protect the most vulnerable women, then the outcomes will be better, stronger, fairer, more equitable and safer for all.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for securing this debate and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who made some very powerful points about parallels with the Baltic states that I completely agree with. I think all Members in attendance are absolutely clear that if a state that invades its neighbour and holds territory by force gains political or territorial reward for that, it is not buying peace; it is simply queuing up the next war. Borders should not be changed at the barrel of a gun.
At the same time, it must be said plainly that it is for Ukraine and Ukraine alone to decide what compromises, if any, it is prepared to make. It is not for us, not for allies and not for foreign politicians sitting far away from the frontline. That is why I am deeply concerned by suggestions that Ukraine is being asked to give up Ukrainian-controlled territory in the Donbas as a precondition for peace or even as the price of future security guarantees.
Let us be honest about what that means. My hon. Friend made the point earlier. The frontline in the Donbas is among the most fortified places on earth. It was built at great cost and defended with extraordinary courage. Thousands of Ukrainians have given their lives defending it, and they did not do so lightly or on a whim. One must have solid grounds to do so, and it must come concurrently with solid security guarantees.
History warns us where this road leads. In 1938, Czechoslovakia was forced to hand over the Sudetenland, where most of its defences were, in the name of peace, and that peace lasted months. By 1939, the country was occupied and its independence was destroyed. Concessions do not bring security; they can sometimes invite catastrophe.
When we talk about security guarantees, let us not overlook the most real and effective guarantee Ukraine has right now: the brave men and women of Ukraine’s armed forces. They are the reason why Ukraine still exists as a sovereign state. Their courage, discipline and sacrifice are what stand between freedom and occupation, and any peace must allow those forces to be equipped and manned at a level that deters future attacks.
I worry that parts of the international community are not doing their bit. In my view, the United States Administration has been leaning far too heavily towards accommodating the Kremlin. They are talking tough but failing to use the enormous economic, military and political levers they have to apply real pressure. I thank the Minister for the work he has been doing to make sure that British sanctions and support have been robust for Ukraine.
I am very concerned by data showing that overall military aid to Ukraine actually fell last year, even though countries such as the US, France and Germany stepped up their support. At this stage of the war, any drop in assistance sends the wrong signal. We need to give the Ukrainians everything they need and avoid the drip, drip of capabilities and arms that we have seen since the war began.
Finally, we need to be honest about how Russia has used frozen conflicts to its advantage. Across the post-Soviet space, including Transnistria, Abkhazia and the Donbas, Moscow has deliberately kept territorial disputes unresolved as a way of holding its neighbours in limbo. Those conflicts are not accidents; they are tools used to maintain influence, block stability and make it harder for countries to choose their own future or their own alliances. We should not kid ourselves about what these frozen conflicts really are. They are not peaceful compromises; they are pressure points. They allow aggression to fester, and they show us that peace built by accommodating an aggressor does not resolve the case; it simply locks injustice in place.
If, to stop the bloodshed, we have to accept non-recognition of occupied territories but de facto control by Russia—a frozen conflict—that again is for Ukrainians alone to decide. We must support them in their decision, but ensure that in this country we do not recognise Russian claims for one minute. A just and lasting peace cannot be built on coercion or enforced surrender. It cannot be built by asking the victim to pay the price for the aggressor’s crimes. I stand with all my parliamentary colleagues today in standing firm for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, its right to choose its own future and a peace that is real and genuinely durable.
To get the last two speakers in, will Members stick to roughly four minutes or just under?
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Several hon. Members rose—
Order. Please stick to three-minute speeches. There is likely to be a Division in the middle of the debate.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I am delighted to be speaking in this debate about International Human Rights Day and I congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) on securing it. I declare an interest as the UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. It will come as no surprise that I will focus on reminding us all that our history in this country places freedom, including religious freedom, at the heart of who we are as a nation and therefore at the heart of what we seek to achieve in the world around us.
Our country took many centuries to reach the point that we are at now. Thousands of British people have died over the centuries, because they worshipped in the wrong way or did not worship at all. In fact, our country’s relationship with religious freedom is in essence our history. I challenge us all to put a finger down on any part of British history at random and not to see that what is there is linked to religious freedom in some way, for better or for worse. Slowly, however, we developed a better way forward. As our country has become more tolerant, diverse and peaceful, we have moved from strength to strength. Who we are as a nation is wrapped up in the religious freedoms that have evolved into the superb protections that we now call human rights.
In one area, however, we seriously lag behind and that, ironically, is sometimes in our ignorance of the importance of religious freedom in this country and especially around the world, which is my responsibility. Our country is covered with churches from all over the world, yet sometimes we could be forgiven for thinking that religion is a private or unimportant matter. The rest of the world looks at us and thinks, “That’s crazy”, because everywhere else, religion is a major factor in people’s lives.
The world’s largest atheistic state, China, takes religion incredibly seriously. Religion is the main threat to the Chinese Communist party, so the Chinese authorities are busy stomping out Buddhism and the freedom of Buddhists, persecuting Falun Gong sects and shutting down churches. That is why, in July this year, I was pleased to speak at the Human Rights Council in Geneva to challenge the Chinese Communist party on its attempt to interfere with the succession of the next Dalai Lama. The world’s most heavily nuclear-armed state, Russia, takes religion seriously, too, and Russian identity is built on the belief that it is the home of the faithful Church. The world’s richest country, the United States, takes religion incredibly seriously and has a whole office for international religious freedom in its State Department. That is because being denied freedom to believe denies our humanity, and it heralds the coming of darkness.
I am proud of the UK’s record of championing FORB through being an early supporter of the universal declaration of human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights, because we have learned the importance of freedom of religion or belief. It is central to who we are, and we cannot separate it from British values. I am proud to be the MP for North Northumberland, which is home to Holy Island, where historically Vikings attacked British Christians. Over the centuries, however, Northumberland has become a place where people are free to believe what they want to believe. It is tolerant and everyone has the right to believe and confess how they wish. That is my vision for British foreign policy. We must remember that freedom of religion or belief is central to our foreign policy and having a values-led and freedom-focused foreign policy.
Thank you very much. For the record, the Minister was nodding.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered International Human Rights Day 2025.
(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberThank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are all very proud that you have made history and sit in that big Chair for lots of people to see.
I welcome the Government’s decision to hold today’s debate on Black History Month in Government time—something that I have called for many times. Before I forget, I want to congratulate Brent council on its excellent Black History Month event yesterday. I also thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), for her speech—her words are always really quite moving. The only thing is that when we look behind the shadow Minister and see none of her colleagues, it makes us think that she is the only one who thinks like that in her party. However, we are glad that she does, and we chair the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament together, and we do that very well. I am pleased that we have at least one good voice in her party.
October is an exhausting month for a lot of us, and that is not just because it is Diwali, and yesterday was Hindu new year, and we celebrate Bandi Chhor Divas, too. I was proud yesterday to wear my sari in the Chamber, and I wrapped it myself. I did 50-odd squats trying to get in to ask a question in Prime Minister’s questions—I was not called—and my sari stayed intact, so I was proud of myself. October is also Breast Cancer Awareness Month, although I have avoided a lot of that this year, as it is triggering, but we cannot avoid talking about Black History Month.
I saw a powerful affirmation on Jools TV that goes:
“I love myself, I love my skin, I love my hair, my melanin”.
I thought that was so amazing. It is for kids, but adults can take a lot from that, too. Since last year’s Black History Month, we formed the Parliamentary Black Caucus. The founding members include Josh Babarinde, the Mother of the House, Diane Abbott—
Order. We do not read out the names of Members; their constituencies will suffice.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should know better. I will have to google all their constituencies. Anyway, we have some amazing founding members of the black caucus, and that will go from strength to strength.
Among all the positivity, I am tired. When we see 110,000 people marching in London led by a far-right racist, it is absolutely exhausting. It is triggering, too, and not just for me, but for my parents’ generation and for everybody who has ever suffered racism. It is true that not everybody on the march was racist, but there definitely were a hell of a lot of racists on that march. When people say, “I want to get my country back,” I wonder, “Back from whom?” There is a South African calling the shots. The racism that has increased and escalated since March is not even new; it is quite old, and it is from the apartheid era and slavery.
I will read the House just a few of the racist messages that have been sent to me. One said:
“You’re not English and you don’t belong in the country, deport yourself”.
ChadKing97 said:
“There is no ‘our’ you african monkey”.
RojamWej said: “Pipe down monkey”. Bahicks1905 said: “Fuck off you ape.” Another one said:
“You are going home. You know it, we know it.”
It just gets worse and worse, and it is not new. They have not even upgraded their racism. It is just old, pathetic and annoying, but it is scary.
A young lady who came to work for me years ago said that she had never seen the word nigger so often in her life, and she did not expect that.
The Mother of the House receives more abuse than every single MP in this House. Sometimes I wonder about this disregard or disrespect. When I came into Parliament in 2005, there was only one black woman MP, the Mother of the House. The Mother of the House has suffered offensive and horrendous abuse. What do we do? How do we stop it? How do we end it?
Let us start with the flag. The flag is for everybody who is British, right? Those people who have tried to weaponise it—not tried to; they have—have always weaponised it. My brothers were chased down the road by skinhead racist thugs wrapped in the flag to kick their heads in, and I have always said that if we are going to reclaim the flag, we have to reclaim it with a narrative and with context. We cannot just put the flag on everything and think it will be okay.
I would like to see a couple of things. I would like the Government to work with the royal family to change the word “empire” to “excellence”. I mentioned that many years ago, but now is the time. The royal family are looking to modernise, and it would be a great way to modernise, because at the end of the day we are recognising people who are excellent in this country.
If we were to unite instead of fight, what would change? That is what a lot of people are scared about. The people who are trying to get other people to hate are monetising that hate. As we have seen with a lot of people, money does not make you happy. The truth is that if someone gets their joy and energy from hating other people or from racism, there is something misaligned in how their brain works. Racism and hate makes most of us tired—it is absolutely exhausting—but I say to the racists that they have not broken the Mother of the House and they will not break me. From time to time, I might get tired, but I will continue to stand firm in power, and alongside me will be my allies. They will be black, white, brown and everyone in between, because there are more of us than there are of them.
If people do not believe me, there is a clip of an incident that happened in Brent just recently with a white woman called Miranda. She runs the Tiny Pod podcast, and she witnessed a young black man being pulled out of his car by a police officer and his head banged on the floor. Blood was dripping from his head, and she recorded the whole thing. She was extremely vocal in her allyship and advocacy to ensure that no other harm was done to this young black man. The police said to her to move away, and she said, “I am not moving away. I am staying right here.” In the end, the young black guy said, “No, I want her with me.” He said that not because she was a white woman, but because she was protecting him. As I say, there are more of us than there are of them.
In Wembley arena next year, Stand Up to Racism, Hope not Hate and other organisations are going to hold a Love Music Hate Racism concert. It will be one of the biggest in the country, and it will be a powerful event. I am trying to get Adele to come back. If anybody knows her, let me know. We will have the biggest names in the music industry, and we will show how great Britain is through our diversity and our love of music and not racism.
I want to end with some words from John Lewis, the civil rights activist. He said:
“Do not get lost in a sea of despair. Be hopeful, be optimistic. We used to say that ours is not the struggle of one day, one week or one year. Ours is a struggle of a lifetime, or even many lifetimes, and every one of us, from every generation, must do our part. And if we believe in the change we seek, then it is easy to commit to doing all we can…Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble…because the responsibility is ours alone to build a better society and a more peaceful world.”
Our power lies not in money, media or control; our power lies in our numbers and in our courage and our collective fight for justice. It is against them—those who try to divide us—but when we stand united, we will win.
I thank the Minister for talking about health inequalities in the black community. Does she agree that we need to look at how we use AI systems, so that we do not automate bias and discrimination through their use?
I thank my hon. Friend for the point she rightly makes. It is essential that we look at the impact of AI when addressing health inequalities.
Tackling persistent health inequality is a key aim of the Government’s mission to ensure that the NHS is fit for the future. We are determined to ensure that one’s health outcomes are not determined by ethnicity or where one lives. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for the work he does on the Health and Social Care Committee, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton). Sadly, the issue of the workplace harassment and abuse of black and minority ethnic NHS workers is a key issue raised by NHS leaders. I know the Government are working hard to address those challenges.
On the issue of reparations, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for her contribution and work. The Minister for Equalities had a number of valuable conversations during her visit to Bristol yesterday about the need to ensure an honest conversation on the impact of our country’s past. That also included a discussion on the reparative futures programme at the University of Bristol, which is looking at systemic injustice related to transatlantic slavery.
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement today. Israel’s decision to escalate operations in Gaza further and to expand further into Gaza City, where famine has officially been declared, shows that it simply is not listening to our concerns. Given that the Government have raised concerns over and over again and suspended free trade and some arms licences, it almost seems that Israel is mocking our Government. Is it time to take further measures to ensure that we fulfil the UK’s obligations as a third state under international law? We could be at risk here.
I reassure my hon. Friend that we are not at risk—we are not complicit. I am a former lawyer, and I study these things closely. I ask her to look closely at what we have done in relation to other Governments; we do not act unilaterally, but I think we are holding up pretty well. I wish the situation on the ground had changed. It has not yet changed, but we will continue to do everything we can to bring this war to an end.
(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberI agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Hamas cannot continue to govern in Gaza, and I suspect that everyone in this Chamber agrees with that. I do believe that there are prospects beyond that. Indeed, the IRA laid down its arms, and that is a template for how to demilitarise and how leaders in this circumstance can perhaps exit Gaza. However, the continued undermining of the Palestinian Authority by the Israeli Government, including the starvation of funds, is an attempt not to get to a two-state solution which all of us in this House want to see.
We watch as families survey the ruins of their homes and are mocked by illegal settlers in the west bank, and we watch as a little boy looks at his dead relative, waiting for him to take another breath. I watched a mother whose baby had its leg amputated before it even got to take its first step. Where is our humanity? To have a two-state solution, we need two states. Let us recognise Palestine. Can the Foreign Secretary tell me what words I need to say to him to get our Government to take real meaningful action? Tell me what to say and I will say it.
I would say to my hon. Friend that we do need humanity, and everything that this Government have done has been to ensure that there is humanity and to ensure the dignity of the Palestinian people and the hostages that are still underground. We will continue with everything we have to get that ceasefire, and we will throw everything at it—that is what we are doing. I sense her frustration and that of many Members in the Chamber. I am as frustrated as she is, but frustration alone will not deliver what we want to see.
(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Mr Falconer
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the lack of international media in Gaza and the hotly contested nature of events there. It is not just me who has called for an independent investigation; the UN Secretary-General has as well. That reflects the degree of concern within the United Nations system about enabling the media to their job.
Minister, if we do not recognise Palestine, it will cease to exist, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker). Israel has approved another 22 settlement sites in the occupied west bank—the biggest expansion in decades. It violates international law. Minister, Louis Theroux’s incredible documentary “The Settlers”, which I will be showing today—he is in Parliament today—highlights the grim reality of the settlers’ mindset. Minister, you must agree that it is time that we have a strong debate. You cannot persuade—
The passion is overtaking me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Minister, do you not agree that we need—[Interruption.]
Order. People keep addressing the Minister as “Minister”. They should be asking their questions through the Chair. The hon. Lady should say, “Does he agree?”
Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Does the Minister agree that it has gone far enough, and that we must have this debate and say we will apply sanctions to Israel? No more arms should go to Israel. We must see the Palestinians as people and help them to survive.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friends, who are just trying to make me, as a new Member of the House, feel that everybody makes mistakes. I am also grateful for that important question. As my hon. Friend knows, we have taken action against the settlers in the documentary and others. I recognise that the situation in Gaza and the west bank remains awful. We have condemned the 22 settlements that were announced over the recess. We have been clear that further steps will be taken, and I will be happy to return to the House when I am in a position to do so.
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have condemned the statements of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in the past. On 6 May, Israel’s Finance Minister Smotrich said:
“Gaza will be entirely destroyed, civilians will be sent to…the south to a humanitarian zone without Hamas or terrorism, and from there they will start to leave in great numbers to third countries”.
We condemn that language. We condemn the language of Minister Ben-Gvir and, of course, we keep that language under review and continue to discuss these issues with our international partners.
The hon. Gentleman asks about recognition and the work that we see France and Saudi Arabia doing. Of course, we are in close dialogue with our P5 partner of France and with Saudi Arabia, in fact. I touched on these issues with the Saudi Arabian PM in Rome at the weekend. The hon. Gentleman asked about the road map. As I have said, we will review the road map. He will recognise that there are elements of that road map, particularly as they pertain to security issues and the work we do jointly on Iran, that would not be right to suspend, but we are reviewing it—as we should, given the circumstances. I have said time and again that we have suspended arms sales that could be used in Gaza, notwithstanding those we must necessarily retain that particularly pertain to the supply chain on F-35s and their use in warfare in other theatres with which we have an interest.
I thank the Secretary of State for his strong statement. It feels like it has taken a long time for us to get to this point. When something is intolerable, we stop it from happening some way or another. Will this actually stop what is happening in Gaza, or is it too late? The fact that Netanyahu has said he will let a small amount of aid in means that he understands he has been withholding aid. That is a breach of international law, and we must call it out for what it is. We must insist that the hostages, and also the prisoners held without charge, are returned.
My hon. Friend rightly prays in aid of international humanitarian law. She knows that because we in this country were one of the great architects of that international humanitarian law, we have to stand by it, and when we see it breached, we have to call it out. I began that process less than three months into office back in September when I suspended arms sales to Israel. I am terribly sad that we have had to act in this way to suspend any discussion of a new trade deal with Israel and to review our road map with Israel. It is deeply worrying that three leaders had to come together to put out that statement to make it crystal clear that the actions taking place must now come to an end, or there will be further acts to bring this war to an end. We will do all we can.
(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yes, I do, and I am glad the Minister is here to listen to the debate and interested in what he will say in response.
It is important to target sanctions under the UK’s global human rights sanctions regime against individuals and entities complicit in Christian persecution. Will the Government ensure that they publicly name and support at-risk and imprisoned Christian leaders, and use diplomatic channels and public platforms to press for their immediate and unconditional release? FORB should be integrated into broader UK human rights and foreign policy frameworks to ensure that the new integrated human rights and sanctions regime prioritises religious freedom alongside other human rights. Gender and religion-specific vulnerabilities should be recognised in the design of strategies to tackle issues including protection, displacement, conflict prevention, peacebuilding, development and human rights generally.
In recent years the UK has shown great leadership in promoting FORB, and it is vital that it continues to do so. When freedom of religion or belief is under attack, other basic human rights are often under threat as well. FORB serves as the ultimate litmus test for the health of other freedoms in a country. We are blessed to live in a society in which the Government do not take these threats lightly. However, the growing issue of rising authoritarianism in North Korea, central Asia and Iran, and the extreme displacement in west and sub-Saharan Africa, remain deeply concerning and under-represented. I look forward to hearing from colleagues and hope the Minister will address our concerns, so that freedom of religion or belief remains a leading priority in foreign policy and diplomatic engagement.
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. We estimate that Members should keep to a limit of around four or five minutes per speech.
I absolutely agree. It is of course not just Christians who think that, but it is right that in our country we proudly stand on that ground, and defend the right of everybody to absolute freedom of belief. As I said, I think we do that, ultimately, because the foundation of our politics is Christian.
I will refer quickly to the Holy Land, as other hon. Members have. I have become chair of the APPG on Christianity in the Holy Land, which was instigated by our former colleague David Linden, who is a sad loss to the House—at least on this topic, not on others. He encouraged me to take up the role, so I have been having a number of very powerful and moving conversations with Palestinian Christians about the state of the Church in the Holy Land. In fact, I visited many years ago, in the early 2000s during the second intifada, with Canon Andrew White, who was the Church of England’s representative to the Holy Land in those days and a very great man. We visited Bethlehem, and I saw how absolutely desperate the plight of the Church was at that time. As the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) acknowledged, the situation has got worse and the state of the Church in the Holy Land is now very dire. I acknowledge that that is the consequence of Israeli Government activity. I recognise that and, as a strong supporter of Israel, I recognise how hard it is for Christians in the west bank to worship.
On a different trip at around the same time, I visited Iraq with Andrew White, just after the invasion. At that point, we could wander around quite freely. There was a sense that there would be a new flourishing of religious freedom in Iraq. We visited St George’s church, for a service to mark its reopening after the war. It was a wonderful moment, with Iraqi Christians, as well as lots of American and British soldiers, present. It felt like the dawning of something wonderful in Iraq. Of course, within months that church was closed, and many of the Christians we had met were dead. The tragedy of the American-led invasion was that Christianity in Iraq has been severely repressed ever since, and we know about the similar phenomena in Syria and elsewhere since. The tragedy of nation-building in the middle east, often led by Christians, has not been good for the Church.
The principal enemy of Christianity globally is not misapplied western liberalism; it is alternative religions and ideologies, in particular Marxism in China, radical Hinduism in India and, of course, radical Islam all over the world. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) mentioned Nigeria. The situation there is absolutely appalling: 3,000 people a year killed in recent years, and getting on for a quarter of a million people displaced. That is, I think, around half the total global number of those killed and displaced. In Algeria, as the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn mentioned, I want to draw particular attention to the Kabyle people, a Berber community in the north of the country who have been resisting the Islamist ideology of the Algerian Government for many years and who have suffered severe persecution. They are attempting self-determination and their slogan is, “In the name of all beliefs”. I want to acknowledge that—going back to my original point—when we defend Christianity, we are defending everybody, and I pay tribute to that campaign.
I want to finish by asserting this point. Christianity is established in the west and therefore we think of it as the dominant philosophy, even though in many ways in our country I do not feel it is anymore. It is the shield of minorities everywhere, and I think we need a stronger promotion of the value of Christianity in every society. We should not simply be defensive in debates like this about defending the status quo and defending Christians; we should be supporting those who promote Christianity, sympathetically of course and always peacefully. The promotion of Christianity is a moral good, because wherever Christianity is, life is better. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I could not put it better than he did: in an absolute sense, Christianity is good for people.
I pay tribute to Fiona Bruce, the hon. Member for North Northumberland’s predecessor as special envoy—a great friend to many of us and a pioneer in this space in the previous Parliament and over many years for her work promoting religious freedom and belief in this country and around the world. It is a great shame that the Bill she was championing fell before the general election. I do not know whether the hon. Member for North Northumberland would have welcomed it, or if the Government have any intention of reviving the measures proposed in it, which were to establish the position of the envoy on a statutory footing, properly resourced, rather than being something that, as it were, exists at the whim of the Government. I regret that the Bill fell, but I pay tribute to her. I pay tribute particularly to the hon. Member for North Northumberland. It is a tremendous thing that he is now in post; he has a great and important role to do.
Lastly, to end on a note of hope, there are great things happening in the world. Christianity is not oppressed, downtrodden or downcast. We are seeing very positive signs of growth and revival. In China, the house church movement has won many millions of converts. Here in the UK, I am encouraged. There was a report from the Bible Society and Theos recently called, “The Quiet Revival” which demonstrates that, quietly, we are seeing new growth in our faith in the UK. On that basis, I have confidence in the future.
I would like to get everybody in for this important debate. We are looking to get to the Minister at around 10.28 am, so you have about four minutes per speech, please.
It is an absolute honour, Ms Butler, to serve under your guidance this morning. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for starting the debate so very well.
I think that to be a Liberal is to stand up for the rights of people that we do not like and do not agree with. It is easy to stand up for the minorities that we agree with. But on this occasion, I speak as somebody who I guess belongs to the minority on planet Earth and indeed, if we believe the last United Kingdom census, in this country: I am a Christian.
As other people have said, I will try to race through my remarks, so that others can get their fair share of the time available. I pay tribute to Open Doors for its world watchlist and for the work it has done in exposing persecution around the world. I will just focus on one or two instances, in particular the state of Libya.
Libya is very important for so many reasons. It is the fourth most persecuted place on planet Earth for Christians. Only 0.5%—35,000—of the people in Libya are Christians. If a woman in Libya is even suspected of being interested in Christianity, they will face horrific abuse, sexual violence, house arrest, forced marriage and even, so to speak, “honour killing”. Neither men nor women are spared. They are subjected to losing their jobs, their homes and their livelihoods. Such incidents are not isolated in Libya; there are widespread attacks upon Christians and suspected Christians right across the country, and the total instability there makes things even worse.
I highlight Libya because it is the country through which so many refugees who may end up in this country go through. When we talk about the channel crossings, let us put things in perspective. Whatever dangers people put themselves through to cross the channel—and they are huge dangers—they are absolutely nothing compared to the hideous dangers that people go through to cross Libya, in order to get themselves to the Mediterranean in the first place. Eritrea is a country where 44% of the population is Christian, and where young men and women find themselves forcibly conscripted indefinitely, very often to kill their own people. We need to be aware of that when we are talking about the refugee crisis.
It is not just failing states where there is a threat to Christians. We see Christian nationalism around the world, where Christianity is appropriated for political purposes—either to shore up the regime, country or state, or one’s own political party. I counsel all Christians to be deeply suspicious of those who seek to appropriate the gospel for political purposes. China has been mentioned as well—a country where, on the face of it, Christianity is tolerated. However, branches of the Church, house churches and those faithful to Christ alone who will not bow the knee to the state, find themselves increasingly under serious threat.
It is worth touching on for a moment why Christians are the most persecuted group on planet Earth, though they are not the only persecuted group—we should stand with all others as well, as I said in my opening remarks. Christians believe we have ultimate allegiance somewhere else. Famously in Matthew 22:20, Jesus is approached by someone who is trying to catch him out by asking, “Are you going to pay taxes to the temple? Are you going to pay taxes to Caesar?” Jesus picks up a coin and says, “Whose image is on this coin?” The image is of Caesar’s. Jesus famously says, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” That may or may not be an instruction to pay taxes, but it is definitely about giving the image-bearer—or the image-provider—all of what the image entails. That coin had Caesar’s image on it, but God’s image is on us—so yes, give the coin to Caesar, but give all of oneself to God. One can see why that is deeply counter-cultural and offensive.
I heard Justin Welby being interviewed by Laura Kuenssberg the other weekend, as many hon. Members will have. The most irritating part of the interview, from my perspective, is when Justin Welby did not push back when Laura Kuenssberg said, “Why isn’t the Church more in tune with the culture?” That is because we are not meant to be. We are counter-cultural in every place and generation, which will wind up dictators and so-called democrats. That is why I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for appointing the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), and for recognising that freedom of religion and belief is something we must always fight for because especially for Christians, as we live our counter-cultural lives, we will always be offensive following one who caused the greatest of all offences and died on a cross for all of our sins.
In order to fit everybody in, I will put a two-minute time limit on speeches.
Jesus of course warned his disciples that in this world they would have tribulation. Many Christians across the world have experienced that tribulation in their own personal lives. Over 340 million Christians are actively persecuted for their faith. That ranges from discrimination, to imprisonment, torture and death. I think many of us find it difficult to contemplate and comprehend that people making the choice to be a Christian know that, in some countries, that is what they will suffer.
One of the most moving experiences I have had in this House was at the Open Doors event, where I met a pastor from Nigeria, who told me that his church of 400 members was down to 22 because most of them had been killed. He was going back to be their pastor and to lead them, regardless of the consequences. I do not know how many of us in this room would have that kind of bravery. In this Parliament, we have a duty to keep highlighting these issues through the questions we ask and the debates that we have. The Government have power to do things through their trade, aid and asylum policies. One of the bishops in Syria told me that the Christian Church had been decimated in Syria, but even when refugees went to refugee camps, they were the first to be persecuted and discriminated against there. I think our asylum policy has to bear in mind those groups fleeing persecution and still being persecuted as they should have priority. There is much we can do and I hope that debates such as this one encourage the Government to do it.
I would like to give the mover of the motion two minutes at the end.
(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Mr Falconer
I do not think that anything I said indicated that I expected this House to be less critical in its position, so I am not sure that I accept the hon. Gentleman’s question.
It is our job in this House to speak out against what Hamas did, but also to speak out against Israel and what it is doing. Denying Members entry is a disgrace, and I am embarrassed by His Majesty’s official Opposition and the position they have taken—they should be ashamed, and should reflect on what they have done. Krishnan Guru-Murthy’s interview with the Israeli ambassador on “Channel 4 News” clearly showed that she was lying. Does the Minister agree that the way in which our friends have been treated is a snub to the UK?