International Day of Democracy

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Blake]

I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. I agree that that is an area for considerably more thought.

Abroad, we have seen democracy in decline for a sixth consecutive year. According to analysis from Freedom House, in 2024, 60 countries experienced a deterioration in their political rights and liberties and only 34 secured improvements. Anti-democratic coups in central and west Africa, and the sustained illegal invasion of Ukraine by an increasingly authoritarian Russia, serve as reminders to us all that democracy is not just in decline, but being actively assaulted. At home and around the world, we are facing increasing radicalisation to the far left and far right, as the politics of meeting generational challenges, such as international conflicts, rewiring our global economy and countering climate change, are confronted by polarisation through disinformation and social media.

Last weekend, over 100,000 people marched through my constituency. Many expressed a long-standing freedom of speech without concern for harm or disorder, but some acted in ways that we need to condemn: assaults on members of law enforcement; speeches propagating racist conspiracy theories; foreign tech billionaires demanding “revolutionary” Government change to a democratically elected Administration; and calls to shoot the Prime Minister. That does not reflect who we are and what our democracy can achieve.

Many of those who marched on Saturday did so under the Union flag, which has so many times united us as a country; it united us at the millennium celebrations, the Olympics, and even every Thursday during lockdown as we clapped for our key workers. We cannot let this flag and our national pride be corrupted by the elements within this movement that espouse anti-British values.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Does she agree that our democracy, and wider democracies around the globe, need to be sufficiently strong, wide and deep to tolerate views and opinions that we may fundamentally disagree with, but are allowed to be expressed peacefully and democratically?

[Rachel Blake]

I would agree. I will come on to some of the ways in which we can strengthen our democracy later. I welcome the point made by the hon. Member. This movement cannot be supported in espousing anti-British values.

My constituency is home to Soho, built from the ground up by migrants and the LGBT community living, working and organising together. It is home to the City of London, whose status as a heart of business and growth has been strengthened by waves of refugees fleeing persecution, such as the 16th-century Huguenots. It is home to Fitzrovia, the heart of artistic and academic excellence from generations of freethinkers. This is the London that I know and love, and this is the country that I know and love, and that the leaders of far-right movements want to take away from us.

We have seen what it looks like when our rights and freedoms are taken away in the experience of those such as my constituent Jimmy Lai, who as of today has been detained unlawfully for 1,721 days for standing up for freedom in Hong Kong. That China would feel emboldened to imprison a British citizen, a journalist, a grandfather, and put him through a sham trial is completely unacceptable.

Our rules-based international order, which upheld fundamental human rights, has decayed at a remarkable rate. Some in this country would degrade it further by withdrawing from and dismantling the European convention on human rights, which the United Kingdom founded and which enshrines fundamental British values such as the right to life, and the freedoms of speech and thought, on an international level.

I also see threats to democracy at local level, in my work as a constituency MP. The frustration, disillusionment and disappointment with which constituents contact us is just a small signifier of the strength and depth of the malaise in our democracy today. We must confront head-on the fact that our democracy is at a crossroads. Voters increasingly feel that the social contract between them and their leaders is wearing thin, with only 12% of them trusting the Government to act in the popular interest, above that of their party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I commend the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this debate. It is an absolute pleasure to speak in this debate, as the importance of democracy lies in the protection of rights, the accountability of power and, indeed, public participation. That is what gives each and every individual of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and beyond, a right to civil liberty. I am honoured to speak in support of that.

I welcome the Minister to his new role as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs. He is probably glad that he is no longer in charge of the Whip. He hopefully has an easier job. I look forward to his contribution. He always has a calmness, and in this debate we will see how calm he can be when it comes to answering all the questions. I wish him well.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred to Jimmy Lai, and I wholeheartedly agree with what she said. He is deteriorating, health-wise, in a Hong Kong prison on trumped-up charges made by the Chinese Communist party. It is important that we, in this House and elsewhere, take a stand.

For decades, democracy has been used across Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure free and fair elections. With our universal suffrage for all citizens aged 18 and over, the separation of powers and the rule of law that all must follow, democracy in the United Kingdom has delivered representation and accountability, but it must always remain resilient, fair and inclusive. Democracy must be the cornerstone of any country, as we have seen in Northern Ireland from the era of the troubles until now, albeit there is still much work to be done.

This debate is timely. I, as an elected representative, would not feel right participating in it without mentioning the attack on democracy and the freedom of expression that we all witnessed in Utah last week in the murder of Charlie Kirk. It hit all too close to home, following the murder of our own David Amess and Jo Cox, and many others.

Free speech—the right to speak freely—is fundamental to any democracy, or any state with democratic principles, as this mother of Parliaments very much demonstrates. Back home in Northern Ireland, we know all too well the damage that political violence can do. It is upsetting and shocking to witness further instances of it in other parts of the world. Each Member who represents Northern Ireland, and indeed those who do not, will understand the 30 years of conflict that we had, to which many of us, and our families, were subject directly.

Charlie Kirk spoke boldly for what he believed. He used his voice to challenge the damaging culture of the day and to shape the future of America. Charlie highlighted how one person’s words can move hearts, spark debate and leave a mark on history. On that gazebo last weekend was written, “Prove me wrong”. He was open to debate and to exchanging views. At the same time, he was open to being able to persuade others of what he was trying to say.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

The murder of Charlie Kirk shows the most concerning aspect of democracy in the United States, but almost as concerning was the aftermath, when a number of people sought to justify his murder, and to explain it and define it, by quoting—sometimes in context, sometimes out of context—something he is alleged to have said. We need to be careful in the aftermath of violent acts.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nothing grieved me as much, and probably grieved others in this House and further afield, as those awful remarks that were almost rejoicing in Charlie Kirk’s murder. I find it almost inconceivable to comprehend that, especially when a wife and children, and many others, are grieving.

It cannot be overestimated how loved and well respected Charlie was, especially among the young people of this generation. I have some seven staff who work with me, and there are four young ones among them. Those four are in their 20s, and they were genuinely devastated by the news—they said they felt grief and loss. That tells me that the impact of the murder of Charlie Kirk went far beyond America and across this great nation as well. The shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), has tabled an early-day motion on the murder, and I have tabled one as well.

Those in my constituency from older age groups have also outlined how they are equally as shocked and saddened. Charlie spread the word of God, the word of family, faith and freedom, and the importance of conservative politics today. I do not care what someone’s political aspirations or religious views are—they are not important. The fact is that no individual on this Earth deserves to have their life ripped away from them.

Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I commend the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)—he and I have been friends for many years. Like me and many others, he holds a love for Britain, so I look forward to working with him.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) clearly illustrated his concerns about the Britain we live in, some of which I share, and he set out what he wishes to achieve. I will make some comments about that in a wee minute.

It is encouraging—indeed, wonderful—that we have legislation to protect minorities across the UK. I believe that we must do that, and the hon. Member for Romford did not say that we should not. We must protect all minorities and discourage direct and indirect discrimination. Of course, there is always more work to be done. We need to perfect all of that and do it right, so it is good to be here to say that.

I always give a Northern Ireland perspective, and the legislation in Northern Ireland is different from the legislation in England and Wales. I want to illustrate that, and then set out where I would hope to be. Northern Ireland does not use the Equality Act legislation that England and Wales use. Back home, the legislation is separate and more complex, as the Minister is well aware from her discussions with the relevant Minister back home. That framework of equality laws developed over a period of time, and the Equality Act, in conversation, does not directly apply to Northern Ireland.

For example, we have separate pieces of legislation relating to sex discrimination, race relations, disability discrimination and employment treatment. I suspect that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West, if he had the time to check what we do in Northern Ireland, would find that he was more at home with our legislation, based on his comments just now.

The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is the main body overseeing equality laws and protections, and has long advocated for a single piece of legislation. I raise concerns around certain legislation, such as the Equality Act, which does the opposite of what it intends—it intends to do something but, in fact, springs back in the opposite direction.

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

On the issue of the opposite to what is intended happening in practice, does my hon. Friend agree that, particularly with DEI-related matters, although legislative changes seek to protect those who have genuinely been affected and feel they must seek redress, they often attract people who will maliciously use them to further a political agenda and then derive more capital, rather than having a genuine grievance that has to be addressed?

[Jim Shannon]

I am going to outline the society that I would like to see, and which I think everyone in this Chamber would probably want; it is not a perfect world, because the world is never perfect, but it is the society that I would like to see. My hon. Friend outlined how legislation can sometimes be used to discriminate against a majority, rather than to help a minority, and I will give some examples of that.

The intention of the Equality Act is to harmonise discrimination law to create a fairer and more equal society—that is us back home. To take the example of employment, so many jobs nowadays promote equality and good in careers and hiring new starts. However, on the application form for the civil service, for example, candidates are not even able to put their educational achievements or their employment history, often leaving qualified people behind. That is equality, but is it? I pose that question.

Perhaps I am old-fashioned in my approach; indeed, my wife and children tell me I am old-fashioned, so I probably am. I hope hon. Members will forgive me for being old-fashioned and for being from that generation that perhaps sees things in a slightly different way. Years mature you, and they have definitely matured me. I do not see things the same way as I did 20 or 40 years ago; I see things very differently today in the society we live in. The society I want to see is a pluralistic society where we can all have our differences but still live together side by side, and where we can hold on to our beliefs, strengths and convictions but at the same time respect others. That is the place I want to be.

However, we do not legislation to tell us how to treat people; we need to look individually at how we treat people. It is common sense to me that we do not discriminate against people because of their skin colour or disability. That should never happen. I know that society is making sure that that does not happen, and I welcome that. My issue lies when the majority—I think this is the issue referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell)—becomes a minority because of the legislation, for example, on equal opportunity employment. That just cannot be right. By the way, I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. She and I have been friends for many years. I know she encapsulates the thoughts and concerns we have, and I look forward to her response.

House of Commons Library research highlights the fact that the Women and Equalities Unit leads work in policy, and one of its priorities is tackling violence against women and girls. You will know this, Dr Allin-Khan, and I suspect that everybody will: the violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland is horrendous. The number of ladies who have died over the last number of years, percentage-wise, is phenomenally greater in Northern Ireland than anywhere else. The legislation that we have does not really address that, but it needs to.

It is a growing issue. In the past 10 weeks, I think 10 people have been murdered. My goodness! I do not know what is happening in society. Sometimes I despair, to be perfectly honest. This Chamber will be all too familiar with the devastation that Northern Ireland has witnessed as a result of female homicides and the shocking and unbelievable figures on domestic abuse. Those are issues on which we all want and require action.

I put on record my thanks to my DUP colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), for her tremendous work in speaking out against the Equality Commission’s intervention on the Supreme Court ruling on what a woman is. She has been and continues to be a vocal advocate for the protection of women’s rights and for ensuring that people do not lose sight of the importance of the issue.

Although it is great, and it is pivotal, that we have guidance and legislation in place to protect people, we must never let other groups potentially fall behind as a result. If that is what happens, it is not achieving its goal. I want, as I think we all do, to live in a world where we accept others for what they are and where we do not fall out because they have a different culture or history, come from a different part of the world or have a different religion. That should not matter. It does not matter to me, personally. We do not have to agree with every choice that an individual makes, but we can agree to differ.

As you and others will know, Dr Allin-Khan, I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I believe emphatically, as a Christian. I will speak up for those with a Christian faith, I will speak up for those with other faiths and I will speak up for those with no faith, because I believe that it is my job to do so. That is how I feel in my heart, and I believe that that is the right way. That is the society that I wish to have: a pluralistic society where we can live together.

Many years ago in Northern Ireland—I have had many years in Northern Ireland, probably more than most—I was brought up in a society in which violence, conflict and difference were the way things were. But today they are not, and that is the society I want. That is what we should be seeking through this debate, and I think it is what the hon. Member for Romford wants to achieve. He has highlighted some of the issues that have to be addressed.

We can live in a world where discrimination is not prevalent and where respect is given. That is the utopia that I want to live in, where we can all have friendships and relationships and be on speaking terms. In this Chamber I am no better than anybody else—far from it—but I make it a point to engage with Members of all political views. It is no secret that my politics lie left of centre, but I try to respect people. There are things that we might disagree on—the past six months have probably been the most difficult of my life on the issues that we have had to face in the Chamber, as they it may have been for some others—we will sometimes also agree.

I have had great concerns over the abortion legislation, the assisted dying legislation, welfare reform and family inheritance tax. Those are massive issues for my constituents; I have received thousands of emails about them. But even though we may not win the votes all the time, we have to respect others. I have learned that the House can fairly well be split into a majority and a minority on some of these things.

I look to the Minister to recognise people’s concerns and, potentially, to engage further with her counterparts in Northern Ireland to ensuring that legislation is in place to protect people. It is always good to swap ideas, to exchange and to learn. I hope and pray that we can have a society where we can live better together. That is my ultimate goal in the Chamber. I do not think any MP will ever find me chastising them or shouting across the Chamber; it is just not my form, although I will agree to differ. Perhaps sometimes we need to do just that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question; polio is an issue not just in Gaza but in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Eradication is vital, and we are committed to an eradication campaign. We have helped 600,000 children and we will continue to work on this vital question, including in my region.

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

The Secretary of State reiterated the issue of the conditional recognition of the state of Palestine. If the Government want to do that, would it not be better equally to make it a condition that any future state of Palestine does not threaten the right of the state of Israel to exist, and that if anyone carries out terrorist actions from any future state, they will be handed over to the international authorities?

[Mr Falconer]

There have been important commitments about the future nature of any Palestinian state, including from President Abbas, who said that any such state would be demilitarised. There was absolute clarity in New York—where we made the announcement about the recognition decision—that Hamas can have no future role in Gaza and that a future Palestinian state must pose no threat to an Israeli state. Two states requires two states living in safety and security and posing no threat to each other.

Sudan

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

I thank my hon. Friend for his spotlight on this issue. The UK condemns the growing body of evidence of serious atrocities being committed against civilians in Sudan: the escalation of violence; the killing of civilians; the sexual assault of women; and the restriction of humanitarian access. That is why the Foreign Secretary visited the Sudan-Chad border to raise awareness of the conflict in Sudan and its impact on neighbouring countries. He spoke directly to Sudanese refugees, including to survivors, who shared harrowing stories of sexual violence and torture. The Minister for Africa, for whom this is probably the highest priority area, hosted an event with his Dutch and Swiss counterparts to discuss the alarming rates of conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan and the inadequacy of current responses, and we will redouble our efforts following this urgent question to ensure that we follow that up.

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

The unfolding scenario in Sudan almost defies description. The Minister has quite rightly spoken about the importance of accessibility. Does she agree that, for accessibility to work in terms of aid, resources and assistance, there needs to be a comprehensive international approach in order even to offer the prospect of hope and delivery within the next few months?

[Catherine West]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to talk about the importance not just of our bilateral meetings, but of working at that multilateral level. At the same time, we need to provide support in that important area of gathering facts as we go along, because the fog of war can prevent that. Let me give one example. The UK provided £989,000 to the Sudan Witness project started by the Centre of Information Resilience, which investigates attacks against civilians and works with Sudanese civil society organisations as well as the United Nations fact-finding mission to support evidence gathering and accountability, so that, one day, justice will be served.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of the horrendous human rights record of this regime, a regime that is the worst sponsor of state terrorism in the world.

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

Can the Foreign Secretary declare from the Dispatch Box that an Iran with no nuclear weapons is now a more likely prospect as a result of the actions of the Israeli and American forces over the past 10 days?

[Mr Lammy]

I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, but let me make this clear to him. Once a country has acquired the ability to enrich uranium to 60%, that scientific knowledge is there and does not go away. Ultimately, this will require a diplomatic solution. That is what President Trump is pushing for, and that is what the UK Government want to see as well.

Political Prisoners

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this important debate. It is heartening—at least, I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of this debate, but I think there will be cross-party unity on this issue, and an important statement from the UK Parliament not only to our Government, but to the world that we stand united behind the need to free Jimmy Lai. I am honoured to speak on his behalf.

Recently, I met Sebastien Lai and his legal team in Parliament. I was struck by the determination that Jimmy Lai’s son is demonstrating, not just here in the UK, but around the world, to galvanise international diplomatic support. There are expressions of support from the US Congress, other international organisations and Parliaments around the world. I am afraid it feels as though the UK Government are lagging behind, particularly when we remember that we are talking about a British citizen.

As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, Jimmy has now been imprisoned for more than four years. He has been imprisoned under the Chinese state’s Hong Kong national security law, which effectively criminalises democracy and citizens’ freedom of speech against the Communist dictatorship. He has been denied his choice of legal representation and refused access to independent specialist medical treatment in prison. In October last year, Amnesty International recognised Mr Lai as a prisoner of conscience, and in November the UN working group on arbitrary detention published its opinion that Jimmy Lai is unlawfully and arbitrarily detained, and called for his immediate release.

As I said, the call for Jimmy’s release is backed by not just the United States of America, but Australia, the Canadian Parliament and the European Parliament. I learned from my meeting with Sebastien and the legal team that his trial has been the victim of an abuse of process; it was originally set for a date earlier this year, but it was pushed back and adjourned and we now have a trial date for 14 August this year. Procedural rules have been perverted and twisted against Mr Lai’s legal team. We can see this for what it is: a perversion of justice and a distortion of human rights.

I am very concerned about the actions that the Government do not seem to be taking at this time. I come here in the spirit of collaboration and cross-party unity, but I worry about the backsliding by the Government, particularly in the case of Jimmy Lai. I have several questions for the Minister about the case, which I hope he will address. What conversations have there been between the Foreign Secretary and his opposite number in the Chinese Communist party? What specific discussions has the Prime Minister himself had about Jimmy Lai’s case and prospects for his release? In their pursuit of closer economic ties with China, what actions have other Departments, notably the Treasury, taken to use the dialogue that they so value with the Communist party as an effective means of diplomacy and to do the right thing—in other words, to release Jimmy?

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

As the right hon. Lady is posing her questions to the Minister, perhaps she will come to this one, but if she does not, will she agree to add that the Government need to get together a coalition of international Governments who are on our side—she has already named some—to put significant pressure on the Chinese authorities to do the right thing and release Jimmy Lai?

USAID Funding Pause

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for securing this debate, which is a timely one, given that we are approaching 20 years since the Gleneagles summit held in Scotland in 2005. Twenty years ago, Nelson Mandela spoke in Trafalgar Square calling on us to make poverty history. World leaders gathered in Gleneagles in 2005, and they rose to the challenge, cancelling debt for some of the world’s poorest countries and boosting aid.

In 2025, aid and development are firmly in the spotlight, but for very different reasons and in a very different context. While this debate is focused on the impact of USAID funding cuts, there is no doubt that those cuts will have a seismic impact on the landscape globally, and on our own approach to development. The US is the world’s largest aid donor, providing around 20% of all aid from the 32 members of the OECD. In February, we announced the very difficult decision that UK aid would be cut to boost defence spending.

While I welcome the uplift in defence spending, for people such as me and the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes who have worked in development for many years, it was a painful decision. However, it is important to emphasise the difference between the decisions made in the United States and those made in the UK. While I will not comment too much on the rationales for different Governments’ decisions, the UK Government have been clear that this was not an ideological decision but one driven by financial pressures. I believe, and I am sure that the Minister will assure us, that there is a commitment to continuing to develop aid.

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

On the question of whether the Government’s decision was driven by financial motivations, does the hon. Member agree that whether it is 0.7% or 0.3%, the key is that UK GDP must rise, as her own Chancellor has said? If our economy shrinks, the 0.7% figure becomes almost irrelevant because it is 0.7% of a much smaller budget. All that matters overseas is the amount of cash they get, not the percentage of our domestic product, so we must drive the economy first before we try to deliver the mechanism that I am sure most of us are in favour of.

[Alice Macdonald]

The hon. Member is right; this is an internationally agreed percentage of gross national income, but too many countries have not met that target. As has been mentioned, some countries are stepping back, so it is important to be clear that we will keep our commitment to getting back to 0.7% as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow. However, in this new reality, we must ensure that our aid delivers maximum impact where it is spent, that we take actions to mitigate the effect of these cuts and that we keep the commitment to return to 0.7% in the long term.

In that spirit, I will focus on five key areas where the Government should act. First, they must cut in-donor refugee costs. As many Members know, we spend a significant portion of our current aid budget in the UK on those costs, which were approximately £4 billion in 2023. That trend started under the previous Conservative Government—who also left us with huge backlogs in the asylum system—and I know that this Government are determined to tackle it. We have seen some progress in bringing down those costs, and provisional estimates suggest that they were £2.8 billion in 2024, but we need to continue that trajectory with a clear timeline and a commitment across Departments to get them down.

Secondly, we must maximise the impact of our aid. It is important that we align with the “leave no one behind” principle in the 2015 sustainable development goals. I would not want to be in the shoes of the Minister for International Development in the other place, because there are difficult decisions to be made, as members of the International Development Committee recently heard. It is important that Members of Parliament, including Back Benchers, clearly see the criteria and the vision against which those decisions are being made.

The “leave no one behind” principle must, as I alluded to earlier, include a focus on women and girls. It is clear that the USAID cuts will have a big impact in that area. In 2023, the US was the largest single donor in areas including population, reproductive health and family planning. Under the Conservative Government’s last round of cuts to the aid budget, we saw that women and girls were disproportionately affected, so it is important that does not happen again. I recently asked the Minister for Europe in the main Chamber whether women and girls would remain “at the heart” of our policy, and he assured me that they would.

At the International Development Committee, the Minister for International Development in the other place assured us that although there would be less money for women and girls in education, it would be mainstreamed across all the priorities. Can the Minister elaborate on how we will ensure that they are prioritised and, importantly, how we will continue to support women’s rights organisations? As UN Women has shown recently, there has been a detrimental impact, with many such organisations at risk of having to close their doors altogether. When we invest in women and girls, we get better outcomes, not only for those countries but for ourselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse.

I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for leading the debate. He and I have talked often about his previous job before he came here. I put on the record my thanks to him for what he did. His heart is in this debate, as was clear in his comments. This is a huge issue: since Trump signed the initial executive order in January, there has been a moral obligation on countries like ours to do our best to pick up what may be lost in terms of humanitarian safety, so it is great to be here to discuss that impact.

The United States is the world’s largest aid donor, providing 20% of all aid. In addition, in 2023 it was the largest single donor in areas including population, reproductive health and humanitarian aid. In March 2025, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, stated that 82% of all USAID programmes would be ended. I will try to be respectful, but I have to say that if the richest country in the world cuts back on aid to that extent, it reflects badly on that country; I think there is something wrong there.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I are Christians, and we tithe our money so 10% of our income goes to charities and Christian work. We are not better than anybody else— I make that quite clear—but we do that because we feel we are morally supposed to. The reflection on the USAID programme is absolutely unbelievable and incomprehensible for a country with so much money.

I was telling my hon. Friend about a conversation between two American ladies—I do not know who they were—that I overheard in my hotel in Waterloo this morning. I heard one say to the other, “Oh, by the way, I had to get my leg done and it cost $100,000.” I nearly spilt my coffee on the floor—$100,000 and there was not another word about it. The US as a country has an obligation to others across the world, and it needs to play its part. I say that with respect and in all honesty.

The decisions that began in January have ultimately raised concerns about the continuity of global health and developmental support work. As my party’s health spokesman, my interest is piqued by the potential for humanitarian and health aid to be ultimately affected as a result. I understand that the Government have made some exceptions with waivers, but hundreds of thousands of people will undoubtedly be impacted because of those decisions.

According to The Independent, 912,730 women per week are being denied contraception. HIV vaccine trials in South Africa have been halted. Food and shelter programmes in refugee camps have been reduced or stopped early. US withdrawal has led to an increase in influence from outside actors such as China—let us beware China using its money to fill the space and therefore get what it wants. Up to half a million children could be at risk of outbreaks of malaria and cholera, which can be prevented in normal circumstances with aid.

Not only are such decisions impacting people across the globe, but closer to home the staff are ultimately out of employment as well. There is a disregard for the number of jobs that it could impact. The Minister has compassion and interest in this issue, and I do not think any of us will be disappointed in her response to our requests. In any discussions that she and the Government have with the US on this matter, the UK must work with other countries to meet development goals and ensure that those struggling across the globe are not left with nothing.

The UK has a stellar reputation for supporting countries facing poverty. In Northern Ireland we have several charities, non-governmental organisations and churches— I work with them all the time in my constituency of Strangford and in Newtownards—that are pivotal in supporting people in poverty. Charities such as Challenge Ministries, Mission Africa, Self Help Africa and Children in Crossfire come out of the churches and what they do. Their continued efforts reflect our commitment to supporting the nations who need help, and we must ensure that to some extent we continue to do that in the long term.

[Mr Campbell]

On the NGOs and the other groups helping people at home, the House of Commons Library summary indicates that over a quarter of UK aid has been spend on refugees based in the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be better deployed overseas to try to assist the economies of developing countries, because of the concern about massive immigration into the UK? If those economies were helped and assisted, it would do more to reduce the numbers of people coming to the UK and offset the problems that we occasionally see on our streets.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His comments about what we should do are incredibly wise, because there would be benefits. Sometimes the full appreciation of that is not known.

I was at a Samaritan’s Purse charity event last Friday in my constituency, where I was quite critical of USAID. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, whose missionary work I am aware of, is also working with Samaritan’s Purse. Such people in my constituency and elsewhere fill the gap where the aid falls down. We owe a great debt to those NGOs, church groups, missionary organisations and the likes of Samaritan’s Purse for what they do and how they respond to emergencies, whether they are floods, earthquakes, war or whatever.

To conclude, both Governments have said in the past that more needs to be done to help low-income countries raise their own funds for development and to address climate change, especially in relation to poverty reduction. We should be proud as a nation of what we have done, while also encouraging our counterparts in the US to ensure that we do what we can to support as a collective.

I agree that every pound or dollar spent must not be wasted on political gesturing and must be spent well, but we must not stop spending altogether. That is my fear about USAID, because we have a moral obligation. I know that our US counterparts can work with us to find worthwhile projects, cut the political posturing and make a global difference, which is what we all need to do.

Persecution of Christians

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People cannot worship in rubble. It is important that we acknowledge all the areas affected. I will say more on that shortly.

Open Doors’ alarming global figures for 2024 were presented to us in Parliament in January. The world watchlist and accompanying report paint a deeply concerning picture. Last year, almost 5,000 believers worldwide were killed for their faith. Most were from Nigeria. However, there have been rising numbers of Christian deaths in other countries in sub-Saharan Africa, including Burkina Faso, where 201 believers lost their lives—that is a more than fivefold increase on 2023. The last year has seen almost 210,000 Christians forced from their homes into hiding or exile because of their faith. Almost half of them are from Nigeria, despite around half of all Nigerians being Christians.

Since the first world watchlist in 1983, North Korea has been at the top 23 times, which is almost 70% of the time. The persecution of North Korean Christians has worsened in the last year following a rise in reported incidents of violence, which coincides with stricter regulations announced by the North Korean authorities early in 2024.

More and more Christians are having to worship undercover. In Afghanistan, it is effectively impossible for a Christian to publicly express their faith. In Algeria, all Protestant churches have been forced to close, and the number of Christians awaiting trial and sentencing is at an all-time high. In China, the era of relative tolerance is over. Unregistered churches are now illegal. Church teaching is informed by ideological pressure and official indoctrination. Religious education for children is banned. Many congregations are taking their fellowships underground into isolated home groups. Meanwhile, the small Christian community in Libya is extremely careful to avoid a repeat of the March 2023 crackdown, which swept up numerous Christians for arrest. Believers have to be increasingly creative and courageous in how they gather, if at all.

Open Doors states that the persecuted church is increasingly a displaced church, with believers exiled to refugee camps or camps for internally displaced people. Sudan is facing the largest displacement crisis in the world: in a country of 49 million people, the number of IDPs had surpassed 7.7 million by mid-2024. In Nigeria, radicalised Islamic Fulani militants continue to drive Christian communities from their lands. Conflict in the Manipur region in India has forced tens of thousands of Christians to flee for their lives, often with little more than the clothes on their backs. The loss of home and community makes already vulnerable Christians even more of an easy target.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate and on her excellent speech, in which she is outlining the outstanding work of Open Doors and other organisations. Does she agree that as well as co-ordinating a UK-wide attempt to address the ongoing problem, we need to internationalise it to try to make people from a range of nations aware and resolve it?

[Ruth Jones]

Absolutely. Open Doors is a great organisation for highlighting what is going on around the world. The hon. Gentleman is right that we need a concerted effort around the world to stamp out the persecution of all faiths, but we are talking about Christians in particular today.

In Pakistan, young Christian men are increasingly being targeted for forced conversion, with recent violent attacks including one against a Christian youth whose throat was slit after a blasphemy accusation. In Iran, 139 Christians were arrested in 2024, with many sentenced to lengthy prison terms under national security laws, simply for attending house churches.

In Nicaragua and Colombia, church leaders face arbitrary imprisonment and assassination for standing up to authoritarianism and criminal groups. Mexico is 31st on the 2025 world watchlist—its highest place since 2005. It is also the only country in Latin America to rise in the rankings. Organised crime is rampant in many areas, and churches and believers who seek to counter it make themselves targets. There has been an increase in the number of believers killed and abducted there.

From violent attacks to house arrests and forced marriages, Christian women and girls around the world are shamed and persecuted twice—once for their faith and the second time for their gender.

The universal declaration of human rights is the most translated document in the world. It has been signed by all 193 UN member states. Crucially, it covers provisions for the freedom to change one’s religion or belief, to adopt a religion or belief of choice, or to retain one’s current beliefs. Despite the numerous protections outlined in the declaration, there is a universal lack of accountability for those who do not uphold its principles, leaving religious minorities vulnerable to continued persecution.

Over the past 24 months, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has answered 200 written parliamentary questions that mention the protection and aid of persecuted Christians. The steps the UK is taking to protect this fundamental right include advocating for political transition that leads to an inclusive, non-sectarian and representative Government; reminding all parties of their obligations under international humanitarian law; and ensuring that official development assistance is allocated to those who are most vulnerable and most in need, irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity. It is vital to consider what measurements will be used to assess the impact of such aid, projects and policy.

The Government must continue their work on this issue. Areas in which they can go further include ensuring that UK diplomats raise cases of Christian persecution at bilateral and multilateral levels, including by urging Governments of concern to cease the repression of religious minorities and comply with international human rights standards; advocating for the establishment or strengthening of UN mechanisms to investigate FORB violations; and expanding UK aid and development funding to support local peacebuilding efforts, trauma-recovery programmes and economic rehabilitation for survivors of religious violence in Nicaragua and Colombia.

Israeli-Palestinian Peace: International Fund

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Yemm]

I agree that co-operatives and co-operation are incredibly important with regard to this fund and that we lose sight at our peril of the value of any civil society actors, including co-operatives. We recall that the fund in Northern Ireland gave everybody a seat at the table, a say in their future. The International Fund for Ireland may well have been the great unsung hero of the peace process. We therefore have in recent memory living proof that a plan for civil society reconciliation, backed by an international fund, can succeed where high-level talks may fail.

In my opinion, no one is more fit for this task than the Labour Government. Our party has a long and storied history in peacemaking, Northern Ireland being just one example of that. Equally, I am eager that we build a consensus on the fund across the House.

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

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Steve Yemm]

Very briefly, and this will be the final intervention on me, I am afraid.

[Mr Campbell]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. I just have a word of caution for him on the comparison between the middle east and Northern Ireland. Yes, the International Fund for Ireland made a difference, but the scale of the schism in the middle east caused by 7 October and the scale of the rebuild that will be required in Gaza are such that a fund many times greater than the IFI will be needed to make any meaningful difference in the middle east.

[Steve Yemm]

I very much agree that we need to address the scale of the issue—certainly. That is why it is very important that we build consensus on this issue across the House, and I welcome contributions from Members of all parties who are genuinely interested in finding a resolution.

Democracy is one of the strongest tools that we have in the quest for peace, not just in ensuring that our Government do their part, but in giving disenfranchised people a say in their future. We saw that clearly in Ireland, where the promise that people could express their political desires and views with a ballot in their hand instead of a rifle was key to tackling violent extremism.

I have personally engaged with Israel’s democratic tradition in my recent meetings with Yair Golan, the leader of the opposition Democrats party. He is an inspiring man who has put his life on the line, and he has been a clear and consistent voice for peace and security. I also welcome Israel’s continued engagement with the UK, but democracy will not be built and maintained unless there is a strong coalition of ordinary people and communities to safeguard it. Peacebuilding is about not just summits and large state initiatives, but the day-to-day work of people on the ground doing their utmost to set the conditions for the ending of hostilities.

We know that the Government are ultimately interested in peace in the middle east and are taking a long-term view to achieve that end. We have seen momentum build among G7 countries behind an international fund. I want to be clear that that is the crux of today’s debate. This is not about politicking, theatre or gestures. I secured the debate because I am genuinely interested in finding long-term solutions and achieving the best outcomes in the light of the realities that we face. The UK has the opportunity to take action and provide leadership. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to the fund to date and I am confident that we can build on that in the immediate future. As I draw my speech to a close, I invite Members on both sides of the House to use this opportunity to make suggestions to the Minister about how the Government and the Foreign Office might move this crucial initiative forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I raised these issues in my contribution at the G20. I had a lengthy discussion with Amina Mohammed of the United Nations, with the Foreign Minister of Angola, and with President Ramaphosa on the situation in Sudan. I am looking forward to convening this conference in London, and working with the French and the African Union. We continue to emphasise, with all international partners, the importance of refraining from actions that prolong the conflict.

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

The Foreign Secretary indicated that he would engage in further discussions, along with the African Union. Given that there are about 9 million displaced people in one of the most significant, if not the most significant, humanitarian catastrophes that the world faces today, will he impress on the African Union and partners the need for urgent action to try to resolve this situation?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that question. I went to the Adré crossing not just to spend time with the overwhelming number of women and children who are fleeing the conflict, but to announce £20 million in additional support for refugees and, in particular, for access to reproductive and sexual health services on that border. The situation is grim; it is horrific, and has been given too little attention, and I intend to ensure that we do all we can to bring it to an end.