(2 weeks, 6 days 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
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.
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.
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.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the murder of Charlie Kirk was an appalling act. No one should ever feel threatened by violence; no one should ever be killed for their beliefs or their actions. However much we disagree with the horrendous nature of his death, does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the statements made by Charlie Kirk in life meant that other people felt that their freedom was being threatened, and that they were not safe to speak out?
I agree that we have the right to freedom of speech, and it is very important to have that. Charlie Kirk took full value of his right to speak. Tommy Robinson, whom I disagree with very much, has a right to speak as well.
What we need to be careful about in life is this. I was speaking to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) about how when I am on recess I spend at least two half days on the doors, just to keep in touch with people and understand what they are thinking. The issue of immigration is massive. Now, I may not agree with all the things that are said about immigration—I have my own point of view—but I understand that many people worry about immigration. Those are not the people who are going out to wreck and smash; they are ordinary, middle-class, churchgoing people who have concerns. There are many concerns that people have. We should be careful with our words. I try to be careful with my words in this House, and I hope that others do the same.
We all agree that the murder of Charlie Kirk was horrific—it was abhorrent. That is the only response to it. I am sure that we also feel that it is the duty of Governments, following these terrible actions, to ensure that community safety is a priority. There is always a tension in allowing and enabling voices from across a whole spectrum, while at the same time maintaining that safety. That is one of the not irreconcilable tensions of a democracy, and it is something we must face every time we are challenged in this way.
The right hon. Lady is right. That is fundamental to the society we live in and the way that we move forward. Freedom of speech is the very essence of democracy. Let me be clear that murder does not silence. As Erika Kirk stated:
“If you thought my husband’s mission was powerful before, you have no idea…what you have unleashed across this country and this world”.
Freedom of speech—that viewpoint—must be maintained.
Charlie’s message mattered to people, democracy matters to people and freedom of expression matters to people. This wonderful United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland matters to people. As the right hon. Lady said, having respect for other people’s opinions matters; it matters to me and everyone in this House. Personally speaking, I try to get on with everyone in this House. I might disagree with many things, and I probably disagree with many of the votes that are cast in this House, but that does not stop me being respectful to others. That is something we should all be trying to do.
As a relatively new Member of Parliament, I put it on the record that the hon. Gentleman epitomises that approach to politics. He has shown kindness to me, and I am sure that that is true of hon. Members right across the House. That is to be commended. We should all try to act in the way that he does.
The hon. Gentleman is most kind. I serve my God and saviour. That is who I try to represent in this House, and that is my purpose for being here.
Political violence undermines democracy by disrupting peaceful political processes and intimidating others. On the International Day of Democracy, I celebrate those who uphold democracy. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster did so in her introduction, as did everyone else who spoke, and others will do the same. Unfortunately, we live in a world where those with violent vendettas seek to silence and take over, and we must never allow that to happen.
Democracy without morality is not possible. We must not forget those who stood up and fought for the principles of democracy. Charlie wanted to be remembered for his courage and his faith, which will never be forgotten. Those who share his values and feel silenced by these acts—and there are many—should not forget the importance of democracy and how many people before us fought for our rights in wars throughout history. I look to the Minister for his commitment to respect and freedom of expression, and for condemnation of these horrific acts of political violence. We must do more in this great nation, this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—always better together—to stand up against them.
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberThere is no doubt that the right hon. Lady is correct. Frankly, I am going to try not to make this ad hominem about the Ministers who made decisions; we need to make that decision later, as it were. She is right that it has diminished the standing of our Prime Minister, and I regret that. Although we are the Opposition, I want this Government to succeed in the national interest, and this is doing the opposite of that. The ambassador’s conduct, both prior to appointment and during, must reflect the highest standards of integrity—that is fundamental, and it is true for any ambassador.
I commend the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. It unites the House with its purpose. It is clear within the rules that MPs are accountable for their staff and their conduct and that there will be repercussions. Does he agree that the Prime Minister is accountable for his appointment of the UK ambassador to the United States of America, and the same rules should apply?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When we look at the mechanisms engaged, as I hope we will in the course of this debate, we will see why the Prime Minister made the wrong decision. There is no doubt in my mind that he did.
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The right hon. Gentleman’s question gets to the essence of the decision that has been taken. In the light of additional information in emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to the United States. The emails show that the depth and extent of the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein are materially different from that known at the time of his appointment. In particular, Lord Mandelson’s suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the procedures, and he knows that I do not have the documents relating to the vetting process in front of me.
On behalf of my party, may I convey my support to the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)? I was in her company yesterday and she is very much in our thoughts. I also, on behalf of my party, express deep sadness at the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old conservative influencer who engaged with young people across the United States of America. I know he is in heaven. I pray for his wife and children; I think we should all do that.
At times like this, it is essential that we have an ambassador in place to convey our sincere sympathy with our allies. The removal of Peter Mandelson is to be welcomed. In my humble opinion, he should never have been in the post in the first place. Does the Minister believe that it is imperative that we have an ambassador in place, and that they must have adequate history and qualifications, rather than our having a jobs-for-the-boys mentality? What changes will the Minister make to the appointment process to restore confidence in the role?
The hon. Member is rightly known as one of the kindest and most generous Members of this House. I thank him for his comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) and the attack that she endured this morning. I wholeheartedly agree with his comments on Charlie Kirk. He can be assured that we are already conveying our condolences to the United States. I expect to be with the United States ambassador in London later today, where I will be able to do that in person.
From a practical point of view, as the hon. Member will know, many ambassadors or high commissioner posts are vacant for a time. We have excellent teams who then do that job. Of course, when ambassadors or high commissioners are travelling, there is a team in post who are able to represent this country and ensure our that interests are pursued. That is exactly what will happen in this case.
(3 weeks, 5 days 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
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.
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?
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.
(3 weeks, 5 days 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
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on the passion for humanitarian issues that she has shown in this Chamber and elsewhere in the House in the time that I have known her.
Samaritan’s Purse is an NGO that operates out of my constituency of Strangford and responds in areas of humanitarian need. When victims of war, poverty, disaster, disease and famine cry out, Samaritan’s Purse is often the first to answer. It specialises in meeting critical needs in the world’s most troubled regions. It works through ministry partners already on the scene of a crisis.
Members are thankful for every single charity that is doing its utmost to help, from Samaritan’s Purse collections in Northern Ireland in my constituency of Strangford, under its tremendously hard-working and gifted volunteer Gillian Gilliland, my constituent, through to our American counterparts. Aid has been sent, and it is the place of this House to do all we can to ensure that it goes to the places that most need it. There is a disaster assistance response team, and I have written to the Minister’s Department to ensure that help is given in particular to the NGO Samaritan’s Purse, so that it can do its work.
The House must do its best so that children on both sides of the Gaza strip can have hope and a future. That is the best that we can do in this House today.
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I think I have answered questions on arms and sanctions already in this session. I want to be clear: we have condemned these strikes, and we do not want to see them again. We are discussing these matters with our allies, including, we hope, at the UN Security Council this evening. We will no doubt keep the House updated on how those discussions go.
I thank the Minister for his very confident replies to the questions, and wish him well in his role. These things are never easy, but the Minister has done quite well.
The loss of life is, of course, regrettable in all situations. This House must also condemn the callous murder of six innocent Israelis, including two rabbis and women, on the day before the attack in Doha. Does the Minister acknowledge that the UK must share pertinent intelligence with Israel to ensure that targeted attacks take place, so that Israel can cut the head off the Hamas snake? Then, and only then, can there be peace for Israel and Gaza, the Hamas threat having been targeted and eradicated effectively.
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. I have set out clearly our absolute opposition to Hamas on a whole range of questions, but I have also set out our understanding of international law, why we condemn these strikes, and why we do not want to see them repeated.
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberIt is not enough to assert it or say it. That is why we restored funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. That is why we have had three packages of sanctions. That is why yesterday I announced an extra £15 million of aid. That is why I have spoken to my Israeli counterpart nearly every week—certainly every month—that I have been in office. It is why we have corralled the international community with the statements we have made. It is not about words; it is about action to bring this to an end.
The Secretary of State was very clear yesterday that if we want peace, we must ensure that the hostages are released. If we want peace, we must ensure that Hamas are ousted from Gaza. If that happens, we will have a peace that will last. I know that he is committed to that, for he said so yesterday, but will he reiterate that for the Chamber and those who are here?
The hon. Gentleman knows a lot about standing up to terrorists. Hamas are a proscribed organisation. There can be no role for Hamas. We need the total demilitarisation of Gaza. Those leaders who are there must leave and exit the country so that the Palestinian people can be freed from the plight of what Hamas are raining down on them.
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberIn the interests of time, I simply refer my hon. Friend to the statements that I have already made from the Dispatch Box this afternoon.
I thank the Secretary of State for his clear commitment to delivering help and assistance and to finding a lasting solution. Does he accept that the retrieval of two more dead Israeli hostages, while 48 are still being held either dead or alive by Hamas, indicates the unwillingness of Hamas to bring this war to an end? Does the Secretary of State believe that there is any further way of bringing those hostages home, which I and we all believe would be a meaningful step on the road to a ceasefire and a rebuilding of life for the people of Gaza, as well as for the Israelis on the other side of the strip?
The hon. Gentleman is right: the return of those hostages would see this war come to an end tomorrow. Recently, the sight of terribly malnourished hostages was chilling and horrendous, and heartbreaking for their families. I met hostage families just before the recess, and I will meet them again very shortly. He is right to centre them in his remarks.
(2 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
I appreciate the opportunity to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for setting the scene so very well. She made an excellent speech that encapsulated all the ideas; I thank her very much for that. As always, it is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. We are very fortunate to have a Minister who is very responsive and who understands the issues of human rights and persecution. I very much look forward to her contribution.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I find the situation in Sudan to be of the utmost concern. I have spoken about this issue many times—indeed, there was an urgent question in the main Chamber just last week, to which the Minister replied. The hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) and others have referred to the Christians who are suffering unbelievable human rights abuses, persecution and unspeakable violence; the situation is incomprehensible. As a Christian, I pray for my brothers and sisters, as I have done every morning of my life; this morning before I left the hotel, I prayed for Sudan.
We must do more to support those being persecuted. It is great to be here to represent them and to get that point across. One of the things that disturbs me greatly, as it does us all—it is incomprehensible—is the sexual violence. I can never understand why that is done, but I think I can understand the horror that the women and girls are made to endure by those with guns and strength. I hope the Minister will tell us what can be done to help those women and girls who are subjected to the greatest of violence.
The recent events in Sudan are horrendous, most notably the bombing of three churches in El Fasher by the Rapid Support Forces last month. That resulted in the death of five people, including Father Luka Jomo, the parish priest of the Roman Catholic church, and left many more injured. The RSF also seized two major camps for internally displaced persons, Abu Shouk and Zamzam, which house more than 700,000 people and have now been militarised. I hope the Minister can tell us what is happening in those two camps seized by the military, where 700,000 people are subject to whatever the RSF want to do to them.
The RSF’s repeated attacks on places of worship and systematic pressure on Christians to convert to Islam during the ongoing conflict with the Sudanese Armed Forces are deeply troubling. Both parties have committed violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, including attacks on vulnerable civilians seeking refuge in churches.
While fighting between the SAF and RSF has intensified in Darfur and Omdurman, targeted attacks on churches have continued since the civil conflict began in April 2023. Both armed factions were accused of desecrating religious spaces during military operations. They show an absolute disregard for church buildings and the right of people to worship their God if they so wish; they attack the sacraments in some churches, particularly Roman Catholic ones. There is the destruction of houses, of the community, of economic opportunity and jobs. All those things are happening. Many of us think that Sudan is the place that the world has forgotten. It disturbs us greatly.
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. In August last year, the third official famine declaration of the 21st century was made in the Zamzam displacement camp in north Darfur. This year, it is projected that 65% of the Sudanese population will require humanitarian support. Does the hon. Member agree that the scale of human suffering in Sudan is unconscionable, and that ensuring access to aid should be a priority for the UK Government and international partners, to avert further death and suffering for the millions in Sudan?
I certainly do, and I commend the hon. Gentleman on raising that issue. As I and others will reiterate, he is absolutely right that the priority is to reduce the level of suffering. As he rightly says, this is unconscionable, but our Minister and Government, in partnership with other countries, have an opportunity to do more.
Furthermore, Christian communities displaced by Sudan’s civil war have faced restrictions on worshipping in refugee areas. As both a Christian and the chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, that greatly disturbs me. In Wadi Halfa, a town in the Northern state, displaced Christians were blocked last year from holding a Christmas service in a public park, where they had taken shelter, as they had been internally displaced and moved away from the violence.
Pastor Mugadam Shraf Aldin Hassan of the United Church of Smyrna said at the time that officials told the congregation they needed written permission to conduct Christian activities in a Muslim area, despite prior verbal approval from national security officers. There had been an agreement, but radicals with extreme ideas decided that they would not let it happen. Again, perhaps the Minister can give us some idea of what can be done to help our brothers and sisters in the Christian communities out there who are subjected to this each and every day.
There is no justification or excuse to prevent any human being from practising their faith, or no faith, wherever they live, in peace and without interruption or force. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that is a fundamental human right and should be protected wherever it can be?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. My APPG believes in the freedom of belief for those with Christian faith, another faith and no faith. We protect them all, we stand up for them all and we speak for them all. I want to live in a world where everyone has the autonomy to practise their individual belief, if they wish to do so.
Sudan ranks as the fifth worst country for Christian persecution on the Open Doors “World Watch List 2025”, which notes that over 100 churches, Christian buildings and homes have been forcibly occupied during the ongoing civil conflict. The situation is dire, and more has to be done to stop this. In his intervention, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) expressed the desperation that we all feel, and the hon. Member for Huddersfield set the scene so incredibly well.
I will conclude as I am conscious that others wish to speak. I urge the Minister and the UK Government to use their influence to call for an immediate ceasefire, and to press, with others, for increased national efforts to protect civilians and places of worship in Sudan. A sustainable peace in Sudan depends on the cessation of violence. The violence must stop; if it does not, this will never end for the good people of Sudan, and for the protection of freedom religious freedom in all its communities.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dr Huq; I acknowledge your interest in matters relating to human rights, humanitarian aid and Africa.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for securing this debate; I am sure that many of her diaspora in Huddersfield are listening carefully to the arguments she has made. Indeed, we have a number of active MPs who mentioned the diaspora today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). Our constituents care deeply about the welfare of Sudanese civilians. That is why it is so important that we have these debates and discussions.
I will try to answer Members’ points, but I specifically wanted to come to the question of our constituents to say that the Foreign Secretary has made a commitment—as part of our strategic diaspora engagement on Sudan—that the UK engages with civil society and diaspora at ministerial and official level. In December, the Minister for Africa, Lord Collins, attended a roundtable alongside representatives of the Sudanese diaspora and civil society, hosted by Dr Zeinab Badawi, president of SOAS University of London.
In the run-up to the London Sudan conference in April, we had an extensive engagement with civil society and NGOs, including at ministerial level, which provided valuable insights into Sudanese views on how to end this dreadful crisis. We complement that work with significant engagement with civilian groups inside and outside Sudan, and have supported civilian activists briefing the UN Security Council. As for any diaspora strategy, we are seeing it today in person through all the hon. Members from across the UK who have come to give voice to the concerns of their own constituents. We know that Sudan is enduring the most severe humanitarian crisis on record. As I outlined on 16 July in response to the urgent question, the situation is nothing short of catastrophic and the consequences of this brutal conflict are being felt. In terms of the numbers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said they were equivalent to half the population of Australia. To put it another way, more Sudanese are affected by this crisis than the number of people in Afghanistan, Gaza, Mali and Bangladesh combined.
With the rainy season approaching, the threat of famine and cholera will only grow, putting even more lives at risk. That is why I was so pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) mention the neglected tropical disease mycetoma, and the rather more common disease malaria, which will flourish in those conditions. It is clear that the humanitarian situation is being exacerbated by how the war is being fought, with both sides showing complete disregard for human life. Reports of appalling atrocities are widespread, civilians are targeted on the basis of ethnicity, sexual violence is rampant, and aid is being weaponised as both sides continue to seek a military solution.
As with many other conflicts—and as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) so eloquently pointed out—it is women and children who are bearing the brunt. A shocking 25% of the population or 12 million people are estimated to be at risk of sexual and gender-based violence in Sudan—as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). Only last week in Sudan’s Kordofan region, more than 450 civilians were killed in brutal attacks, including pregnant women and at least 35 children. Over 3,000 people are reported to have fled recent fighting. The Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC—which was mentioned by several hon. Members this afternoon—stated that it has,
“reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity have been and are continuing to be committed in Darfur”.
That is why it is so important that we deal with the issue of displacement—which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding).
In May, during her visit to the Sudan-Chad border, Minister Chapman announced that the UK would provide £36 million in funding for the financial year 2025-26 for Sudanese refugees in eastern Chad. The collapsing economy and acute food insecurity will hopefully be addressed by some of those funds. The Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC recently stated that it has reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes are being committed. We call on all parties to the conflict to comply with their obligations under international law. I include any external partners—as was raised by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton—regardless of which country they come from and their role, and ask that they put down their weapons and work together to find a peace process. That is why the Foreign Secretary led at the London Sudan conference this Easter.
As the humanitarian situation worsens, the very people trying to deliver aid to those most in need across Sudan have been continuously obstructed from conducting lifesaving work. More than 120 humanitarian workers have been killed since the beginning of the conflict. Just last month, the UNICEF-WFP convoy waiting to deliver lifesaving aid to those fleeing violence in El Fasher was attacked and five aid workers lost their lives, as was highlighted in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group for Sudan and South Sudan. Let me be clear: all parties must allow aid to reach those who need it most, and humanitarian workers must never be a target. I was very impressed by the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and other colleagues from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in listening first hand to the accounts by doctors who have delivered medical aid in Sudan and the horrors of what they saw there.
The UK can, however, be proud of the fact that we are playing our part in addressing the worst consequences of this wholly unjustified war. Sudan has been a top priority for the UK Government since taking office, and indeed a personal priority for the Foreign Secretary, who in January became the first UK Foreign Secretary to visit Chad, when he saw first hand the devastating effect of war on refugee communities.
Our goals are clear: to secure more humanitarian aid, to ensure that it reaches those in need, to protect civilians and to stop the fighting and work with the Sudanese people to deliver long-term peace. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), speaking from the Conservative Front Bench, asked how exactly the funding would be spent. I can reassure him that the £120 million for this year will be spent on lifesaving aid, given the nutritional deficit there. The Mercy Corps-led cash consortium for Sudan, which is a multilateral group, will also receive UK funding to provide direct cash assistance to mutual aid groups on the ground, because we are aware that, with the banking situation in crisis, some multilateral organisations simply cannot provide the usual sorts of aid.
I apologise, but I only have three minutes.
We also want Sudan to be free of FGM—a priority that I know the hon. Member for Romford would be in agreement with—supporting the work of protection and prevention and providing care services in response to increasing rates of gender-based violence across Sudan. Of course, the funding also supports the Sudan Humanitarian Fund, which delivers lifesaving support to communities across Sudan and is now funding the emergency response rooms that provide essential services to communities affected by the conflict in Sudan.
The hon. Member also asked what we are doing politically. Mr Richard Crowder, our UK rep, travels extensively across the region, including to engage with Sudan’s neighbours, which have traditionally had closer ties to both the warring parties. He has engaged extensively with efforts by Egypt and the African Union to foster a platform for civilians to come together and debate the country’s future.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, the UK can be proud of our leadership on the humanitarian crisis. The support that we have provided builds on last year’s £235 million of aid, which reached over 1 million people with food and cash, as well as clean water provision. During her visit to the region in May, Baroness Chapman announced an additional £36 million specifically for those displaced by the refugee crisis. Following the Sudan conference, we are using all diplomatic tools at our disposal to ensure that aid can reach those facing famine across Sudan. As the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council, we continue to raise the alarm about reports of appalling violations of international humanitarian law, and to call on the warring parties to facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief.
I know very well that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield will wish to say a few words, so I will conclude by impressing upon Members the importance of our values. Indeed, the Government strongly condemn the lack of freedom of religion or belief in the current context. We strongly condemn the reported killing of the priest Father Luka Jomo in El Fasher, North Darfur, as well as the reported bombing of churches, which killed and injured multiple people. I can reassure the hon. Member for Strangford that we will continue to champion the right to freedom of religion or belief by promoting tolerance and mutual respect through our engagement in multilateral fora, our bilateral work and our programme funding. David Smith, the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, made a statement at the United Nations Human Rights Council in which he highlighted the UK Government’s concerns—I know he speaks for all of Parliament—about the coercion of non-Muslims in Sudan to change their beliefs through denial of work, food aid and education. In the absence of a ceasefire, the humanitarian situation will only worsen.
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of aid workers. The widespread loss of life among aid workers is a travesty. It is unprecedented. I remind colleagues of chapter 2 of “The Conduct of Hostilities”, the handbook for legal practitioners in international humanitarian law, which says that distinctions lie at the heart of international humanitarian law and requires parties to armed conflict to distinguish at all times between civilians—including, of course, aid workers —and combatants. It is a travesty what we have seen take place over the last two and a half years.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for his thoughtful use of words on a very contentious issue. The latest reports of attacks on the Druze people indicate that hundreds of Druze civilians, including women and children, have been kidnapped, tortured, raped, executed and mutilated, with Christians suffering at their side. Despite the fact that they are fighting back, there is a real and valid fear of genocide of those people, who have a strong faith and, as such, are worthy of our protection. What can the Government and the Foreign Secretary do to secure peace and hope for those people, who are currently being targeted and need aid urgently?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for naming the Druze, who have seen awful atrocities visited on them in the last few days, and the positions of minorities in Syria. I saw that the Pope commented—unusually, in the strongest terms—on what he has seen. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I raised these issues with the Syrian leader myself, urged him to act and said that there must be accountability as he grips the entirety of his country. Of course, these incidents were also taking place under the Assad regime, and in some ways have been going on for a long time, but the suffering that is being wrought on minorities in Syria at this time is totally unacceptable.