Community Health: Manchester Rusholme

Debate between Jim Shannon and Afzal Khan

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise an issue that is incredibly important to me and increasingly pressing for my constituents. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here to respond to the debate.

The Government inherited a dire set of economic circumstances. Years of Tory funding cuts to local authorities and public services have been detrimental to communities, so I am pleased that the Labour Government have committed to handing power back to communities, as well as making commitments to reducing health inequalities. Disparities in community health and access to vital services are causing difficulties across the country, but they have had a disproportionate impact on my constituents.

My constituency of Manchester Rusholme is urban and incredibly diverse. I am proud to represent so many different communities. We also have many students and young people living in the constituency. Although we are discussing health inequalities, the issue goes far beyond health services. We need a wider debate about the many aspects that contribute towards our mental and physical health. As well as accessible and equal healthcare, that includes access to safe and clean local environments, stable work and income and secure and affordable housing. I will discuss the importance of those elements throughout the debate.

As Members know, I am passionate about protecting our local natural environments. We all know how beneficial fresh air and green spaces are to our health and wellbeing, but in Manchester, research shows that many have just 1 square metre of garden space. That means that turning parks and community green spaces into attractive outdoor environments is even more crucial. My constituency celebrates its diversity, and our parks are often where different cultures meet in exercise, play and enjoyment. We are lucky to have beautiful and historic parks such as Alexandra Park and Platt Fields Park.

Parks are also a space for those living in a city to escape high air pollution by acting as a carbon sink, absorbing and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In Manchester, more than 1,200 people die a year as a direct result of toxic air, with babies, pregnant women, elderly people and people with respiratory illnesses most at risk. More than 54,000 children in Greater Manchester also suffer from asthma. We therefore must improve air quality in cities, including utilising public transport and making it easier and safer to travel by walking, wheeling or cycling. Without that, we risk isolating many people from society.

However, even parks are not safe from air pollution. While community green spaces should be an escape from damaging air pollution, evidence from Asthma and Lung UK suggests that less than 1% of the 43,000 public playgrounds in the UK meet guidelines set by the World Health Organisation. I have heard from young people in Ardwick about the air pollution near their school. In Ardwick Green Park, which is bordered by two main roads, children are at constant risk from the emissions just by playing outside. While we must improve access to local parks, we also need to improve air quality more broadly to create truly safe and clean natural spaces.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward? I spoke to him beforehand to get his thoughts. Does he agree that one of the great things that has happened is that the Minister in government has set aside planning for spaces where people can age well and live in an area designed for them to grow old? That is accelerating, including in Manchester Rusholme, to which he is referring, with some £1.5 billion of funding. That is welcome. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings, does he agree that along with the 1.5 million houses that the Government are committed to ensuring will be built, environmental areas must be set aside? Trees are the lungs of the world, and trees have to be part of this, and they need to be planted for the future.

[Afzal Khan]

I could not agree more with the hon. Member. We need to do more to ensure that there is clean air for everyone, because it is essential for each of us to survive.

Another significant obstruction to community health is extensive waste, fly-tipping and litter. Wards in my constituency are plagued by high levels of fly-tipping and a lack of awareness of how to dispose of waste safely and legally. Fly-tipping and litter are an eyesore for residents and cause problems within communities. Countless constituents have written to me about them.

Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the brilliant work done by locally led groups in my constituency to target these issues, including the Friends of Park groups, Moss Side Eco Squad, Upping It, and all those who individually “green” their alleyways and litter-pick. However, while being hugely beneficial to us all, their work should not be necessary. I have also been pleased to support the initiatives that the Government are already taking, such as the drink container deposit scheme, to encourage recycling. I thank my own local authority, Manchester City Council, for putting even more funds into dealing with fly-tipping this year to get to the root cause. We know that tackling this problem systematically is vital.

As well as being clean, green and tidy, our local environments must be safe, but high levels of knife violence have caused problems in Manchester for many years. Over the last three years, Greater Manchester police has recorded more than 2,000 crimes of possessing an

“article with a blade or point”.

Knife crime has also led to the tragic deaths of numerous young people in recent years, sadly including some of my own constituents. We cannot continue to let our young people down by allowing them to fall into violence. I am relieved that the Home Secretary is taking this issue seriously, and has already banned the ownership of certain dangerous knives. I am also grateful for the work of community groups in my constituency such as Mero’s World, the Hideaway Youth Project, Youth on Solid Ground and Moss Side Millennium Powerhouse to raise awareness of the terrible reality of knife violence,make bleed packs more accessible for responsive action, and give young people a safe place to go. We must work on preventive measures to stop knife violence devastating our communities: that must remain a top priority.

Poor standards of work, poor pay and job insecurity also contribute to low levels of community health. Job stability determines everything from a financial safety net to housing conditions, heating and eating nutritional food, but more than 13,000 people in my constituency are not in employment, which is more than the UK average. Nearly 14% of people rely on out-of-work benefits in Manchester, the eighth highest percentage in the country. As for those who are in work, more than 11% of people in Manchester are in low-paid employment, which is significantly higher than the national average. As we all know, low-paid work can damage both physical and mental health, increasing stress and anxiety levels, which are made worse by external factors such as the cost of living crisis. We also know that people from communities that experience racial inequality often have higher levels of unemployment than others. Those higher levels of unemployment and low-paid work in our area are detrimental to the general wellbeing of the community, and contribute to higher levels of poverty.

Furthermore, it is shocking that more than 47% of children in Manchester are living in poverty. That is the third highest proportion in the country. Growing up in poverty has an impact on childhood development, and plays a significant role in education and early-years experience. For example, children in the most disadvantaged areas are less likely to pass key GCSEs. Health Equals has found that children growing up in poverty are four times more likely than those from wealthier families to struggle with mental health issues by the time they are 11. This creates a worrying future for young people growing up in my constituency, who will be disproportionately affected by poor economic conditions. I am pleased that the Government are committed to breaking down those barriers that exist for young people. Children and young people cannot be forgotten in conversations about our local community, because they form a key group in our community who desperately need support that has previously been lacking.

A further issue that is fundamental to the health of our community is housing. Affordable, warm and safe housing should be a fundamental right, yet so many people are living without this necessity. In Manchester Rusholme, up to 40% of households privately rent—double the national average—yet over one in four privately rented homes across Manchester are non-decent. I am grateful for the Government’s efforts to deliver on our promise to transform the rented sector through the Renters’ Rights Bill, which will provide much-needed security for renters across the country.

I am proud to have such a diverse community living in my constituency, but no one should suffer due to their identity or background. For example, research shows that mixed-ethnicity households are more likely to live in houses with damp. Exposure to damp and mould can cause serious illnesses or worse, as we saw with the tragic death of Awaab Ishak. Given these inequalities, my constituents are disproportionately impacted by poor housing. Housing is a critical issue for my constituents, and takes up nearly 30% of all casework sent to me.

Housing in our area has become unaffordable and inaccessible, and is in poor condition. Outside the private rented sector, 28.5% of households in Manchester live in social rented homes—one of the highest rates for authorities outside London. I will continue to work with housing associations to ensure that all my constituents are in good-quality social housing. Being on the waiting list for social housing can take years, denying access to families and individuals in desperate need. I thank Manchester city council for being proactive in investing in even more social housing across my constituency so that everyone can live a healthier life.

I have outlined the disparities in local environments, employment and housing, and their impacts on both individual health and community health. On the back of that, I know my colleagues will agree that where someone lives should not determine how long they live, but in Manchester Rusholme we have the 19th lowest life expectancy of all constituencies, at 77.2 years—seven years lower than the figure for the healthiest communities. This large disparity is unacceptable and truly highlights the problem facing the constituency. It acts as a motivator for me to improve community health in any way possible.

The wider health inequalities seen across the UK are also detrimental for my constituents in Manchester Rusholme. For example, women in my constituency are suffering due to regional inequalities; women in the north-west are less likely to be treated for mental health conditions than those in other regions, as there is a gap in treatment based on where people live. In Manchester, black, Asian and minority ethnic communities were disproportionately impacted by the covid pandemic. We know that many mental and physical health impacts have been proven to be caused by discrimination.

We cannot deny the increasing pressure of the mental health crisis in Manchester. Hospital admissions for mental health conditions have increased among those aged under 18, as have mental health absences from work. Looking at the health of our communities should first involve looking at the health of residents. Addressing health inequalities is crucial to wider community health, and I thank the Caribbean and African Health Network and the neighbourhood health champions for their hard work in this area. As the Darzi review outlined, vital health disparities exist in almost all aspects of care due to the impact of poverty and homelessness, and disparities between ethnicities and for those with learning disabilities. We must act urgently to ensure that no one is left behind, and that our health service and the factors contributing to our health are equitable.

Our local community greatly determines our overall health and wellbeing, as well as that of wider society, but poor standards in health, the environment, work and housing detract from that wellbeing. The impact of these issues on households cannot be overstated, and quality of life cannot remain a postcode lottery. I thank all the charities, organisations and volunteers in my constituency for working to improve our community health, but the weight of improving wellbeing for the constituents of Manchester Rusholme cannot rest solely on their shoulders. I am therefore calling for a cross-governmental community health strategy to tackle the unequal access to a good quality of life through health, local environments, housing and standards of work. I am interested to hear the Labour Government long-term plans to ensure that everyone can live happier and healthier lives. We have an opportunity and a duty to protect our local communities, and to encourage them to prosper and flourish, as they have so much to offer.

Pavement Parking

Debate between Jim Shannon and Afzal Khan

Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Afzal Khan]

I agree wholeheartedly and thank my hon. Friend for her amazing hard work in her constituency. I will be covering the issues she raises in my speech.

I have heard from my local council about missed bin collections and expensive damage to pavement surfaces. Walk Ride Whalley Range in my constituency commissioned its own local research; the response was that pavement parking not only is an issue for those with disabilities or young children, but encourages speeding and reckless driving in neighbourhoods. It discourages people from choosing active travel alternatives to cars, such as walking and cycling, and prevents people from accessing public transport.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He is absolutely right that there is a very clear safety issue. If cars are parked on the pavement, that means that women with prams, ladies who are walking and blind people with their guide dogs have to go on the road, thereby endangering them. Does he agree—perhaps the Minister will address this point, too—that safety has to be paramount? People have to be considerate of others. Back home, whenever I have brought these things to the attention of the police, they have gone out and enforced the rules with tickets. Maybe that needs to be done here as well.

[Afzal Khan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and will expand on some of those points.

I know that local councillors across my constituency have worked hard to tackle the issue, despite not having the right tools to do the job. For example, they have joined efforts to leave notes on parked cars to remind drivers to think about the impact of their parking on other road users.

Most streets in my constituency were constructed before car ownership became common. There are many narrow terrace streets and houses without drives or garages. There needs to be a much wider debate about how a reduction can be achieved in car use in cities, but I want to focus on this one specific issue today. Our starting point must be that footpaths and pavements are for people walking or wheeling, not for vehicles.

Islamophobia Awareness Month

Debate between Jim Shannon and Afzal Khan

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Afzal Khan]

Yes, I agree, and I will be making that point.

I had the privilege of visiting Europe’s first eco-mosque in Cambridge—a real trailblazer in the community. It highlights how effective the British Muslim community has been in tackling the climate crisis with a positive and inspiring message. I extend an invitation to the Minister. I cannot promise that a visit will be as thrilling as Peppa Pig World, but it is worth a visit.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. Does he agree that there is more to be done to ensure that our children grow together in harmony, celebrating the differences that we share, which make us stronger when added to the similarities? That makes us communities. Furthermore, does he believe that one way to achieve that is to facilitate cross-community events that focus on young people of different backgrounds coming together to learn more, to understand more and, inevitably, to accept more about each other, so that we are better together?

[Afzal Khan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I could not have put it better myself.

For 2.7 million Muslims, Islamophobia has distressing and real-life implications. A recent example is the far right peddling the narrative during the pandemic that British Muslims were super-spreaders of covid simply by practising their faith. As a result, Muslim communities suffered a shocking 40% increase in online Islamophobia during this period, according to Tell MAMA. The online safety Bill is an opportunity for the Government to better regulate online content, including harmful and racist material.

Freedom of Religion or Belief

Debate between Jim Shannon and Afzal Khan

Thursday 12th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I think the media have a lot to answer for, on not just this but many subjects. They influence opinion and focus attention unfairly.

Of course, it is not only the non-religious who are suffering. Just under two weeks ago, on 1 March, the Independent Tribunal into Forced Organ Harvesting from Prisoners of Conscience in China, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice, QC, released its full judgment. Its interim judgement, released in 2018, declared that forced organ harvesting from religious prisoners of conscience was taking place. The final judgment confirms that view and declares:

“Forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one—and probably the main—source of organ supply. The concerted persecution and medical testing of the Uyghurs is more recent and it may be that evidence of forced organ harvesting of this group may emerge in due course.”

After yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on that very issue, I am aware that it is emerging. The judgment continues:

“The Tribunal has had no evidence that the significant infrastructure associated with China’s transplantation industry has been dismantled”,

which is disappointing,

“and absent a satisfactory explanation as to the source of readily available organs concludes that forced organ harvesting continues till today.”

I have a nephew back home who had to wait five or six years for a kidney transplant. I understand that the wait it is partly about age and getting older, but it is also about availability. Someone could go to China almost any day, any week, and receive an organ. How can that happen? Even though it is a bigger nation, it poses a question.

Thousands of miles away in Westminster, it is sometimes hard to appreciate the horror of that statement—forced organ harvesting on a commercial scale. It is hard not to wonder how anyone could treat their fellow humans so cruelly. I also wonder how many more will suffer that fate before the UK Government—my Government—take action. I wonder how long the Government will refuse to acknowledge the evidence, which includes admissions from doctors in leading Chinese transplant hospitals. I wonder how history will remember those who ignored what Lord Alton of Liverpool described as a practice comparable with,

“‘the worst atrocities committed in conflicts of the 20th century’, including the gassing of Jews by the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge massacres in Cambodia”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 March 2020; Vol. 802, c. 390.]

The Government say that the World Health Organisation has found China’s transplant system to be legitimate. I find that incredible. It is a system in which it takes two to three weeks to get an organ donation, compared with two to three years in the UK. If the system is legitimate, it is the envy of the world and it is a matter of the utmost priority that the NHS should learn from China to save British lives. If it is legitimate, it is an absolute dereliction of responsibility by the UK Government that they have not done everything in their power to understand how China’s system works, so we can replicate its efficiency in the UK.

Indeed, last year, 34 parliamentarians from both Houses wrote a letter to the WHO director general to request that information, but despite chasing it several times with his office, the WHO did not respond. Surely, if the Chinese system is legitimate, the WHO should be begging the Chinese Government to share their medical marvel with the world, but we all know the real reason why organ transplants are available. The Government are not doing that, and the evidence tells us why.

Beyond Falun Gong practitioners, Uighur Muslims are also suffering in China, as we discussed in yesterday’s debate with the same Minister present. I spoke then as well—in this room, probably from this seat—about China’s treatment of its Uighur population. We learned that “hundreds of thousands”, in fact probably between 1 million and 3 million, are imprisoned in China and that many have experienced acts of torture.

Muslims are not just being persecuted in China, however. Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar have suffered what has been described by the United Nations as a

“textbook example of ethnic cleansing”.

The Rohingya were stripped of their citizenship in 1982 and suffered systematic persecution by Buddhist nationalists. That culminated in a brutal military offensive in August 2017 that killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more, who were forced into neighbouring Bangladesh. We thank Bangladesh for stepping up and reaching out.

In a worrying parallel, at the end of July 2018, in Assam, the Indian Government effectively stripped 4 million people, mostly Muslims, of their citizenship, and branded them illegal immigrants from Bangladesh amid an atmosphere of rising Hindu nationalism. Muslims in India also claim that they are being persecuted by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act passed by the Indian Parliament in December, which provides a fast track to Indian citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from India’s neighbours. Protests erupted across India in response to the law, which is seen by many as discriminatory against Muslims.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work he has done over many years. On what is happening in India, does he agree that it is disappointing, given that we talk about India being the world’s biggest democracy, that it seems to be going downhill with the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the Kashmir issue? I find it shocking that Prime Minister Modi has said to the public that that was only a trailer, so the main film is to yet be seen. How is that acceptable? Should our Government not do more?

[Jim Shannon]

The Government should. Next week I will present a request to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate specifically on India. The hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members who have signed that request, will have an opportunity to debate the issue, in Westminster Hall I suspect. I mention that, as I have tried to mention a lot of other things. I agree with him and I thank him for the intervention.

Sectarian violence has caused dozens of deaths, the destruction of religious buildings and physical altercations in the Indian Parliament—even the Parliament has not been above the verbal and physical abuse of people. That conflict and instability illustrates the point that hon. Members have made repeatedly in such debates, which is that FORB violations can cause and exacerbate conflict between communities and must be addressed before they explode into violence.

In 2018, the APPG for FORB wrote that, “Violence and discrimination, combined with arbitrary exclusion from legal institutions, could cause significant grievances among non-Hindus in India, which may lead to domestic conflict and violence.” Unfortunately, that has proven to be the case. It is for that reason that Government Departments such as the Department for International Development must invest greater resources in promoting freedom of religion or belief to prevent conflict, rather than responding to crises only once violence has already erupted, when it is too late.

Similarly, it is vital that the Government recognise how the potential for societal instability and conflict caused by human rights violations can harm economic prosperity and limit hopes for long-term, prosperous trading relationships with countries such as India, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) referred to. We have a relationship that we wish to build on, but they have to address the issue of human rights. Will the Minister assure hon. Members that FORB violations will be discussed in the Government’s trade negotiations with relevant countries? Will he assure us that provisions to protect human rights will be included in any such deals?

It is particularly important to address FORB violations quickly whenever they emerge because conflicts can spread and violence between Hindus and Muslims in India can have knock-on effects in Pakistan, where non-Muslim minorities such as Hindus and Christians face severe persecution.

If I am spared, I will be visiting Pakistan with Lord Alton from the other place over the Easter period. Just yesterday I had the privilege of meeting a delegation from Pakistan who described how blasphemy laws are being misused there to persecute religious minorities, and how young women and girls from those communities are being taken from their homes. According to the National Commission for Justice and Peace, the Pakistani authorities prosecuted a total of 1,170 blasphemy cases between 1987 and 2012, with scores of new cases being brought every year.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I subscribe to those views as well. He is correct; the blasphemy laws are used maliciously against people. One case that everyone would be aware of is that of Asia Bibi. We were in Pakistan in September 2018 and had an opportunity to meet two of the three judges who were to make the decision on Asia Bibi. We were clear what we were doing when we went there. We were not going to tell the Pakistani Government that they should change everything; we were going to say, “This does not work, because people are maliciously using the law against others for their own reasons.” Our meetings with the judges who were deliberating on Asia Bibi were very helpful and supportive of the case. We were sworn to secrecy and were not able to say that until the case was heard in court, and Asia Bibi was released. I know that there was an appeal after that. Now she is free and living in Canada.

[Afzal Khan]

I also recently visited Pakistan. First, I found it encouraging how assertive and helpful the judiciary are being. Secondly, the current Government seem to be moving in the right direction of protecting minorities, particularly in what they have been doing in terms of the Sikh community—opening up the gurdwara and so on—which is welcome. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his knowledge and his participation today, which is most helpful.

We need to see some other changes in Pakistan, particularly around the 5% of jobs that are set aside for Christians. Christians need to have the opportunity of educational advantage, training and opportunity, so that they can apply for jobs other than those that on offer at the minute—cleaning the streets and cleaning the latrines. Christians deserve the same opportunities as everyone else. I know that 5% of jobs are set aside. Let us have the same opportunity for jobs, whether that is as nurses, doctors, teachers or whatever.

Commonwealth in 2020

Debate between Jim Shannon and Afzal Khan

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

First, I would like to wish everyone a happy Commonwealth Day. I would also like to thank Members for their meaningful contributions in this debate. We have heard speeches and interventions from some 26 Members. Let me also congratulate the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) on making two excellent and passionate maiden speeches.

The Commonwealth is one of the oldest and most diverse political associations. It was established more than 70 years ago and includes 54 member states. Some 2.5 billion people around the world are members, from the Caribbean to the Americas, from Europe out to Asia, Australasia and Africa. But what does it all mean for an incredible collection of people? The core values and principles of the Commonwealth, as outlined in its charter, include democracy; human rights; peace and security; tolerance, respect and understanding; protecting the environment; and gender equality. There is no doubt, however, that the Commonwealth faces a lot of challenges, including human rights abuses, resistance to upholding the rule of law, and persecution of minorities, but it also has a lot of potential and promise, which I will explore.

Given the rise of populist Governments, the need for a strong multilateral organisation is more important than ever. A united Commonwealth that upholds and promotes democratic culture can demonstrate to the world why institutions such as this one are so important. I would like to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) in saying that the Commonwealth can remain a vital force for good in our world.

In many ways, I am an embodiment of the Commonwealth, having roots in both Pakistan and India, and having grown up in Britain. The UK is hugely indebted to the Commonwealth. The contributions made by Commonwealth communities are colossal and vast. The military contributions made during the second world war will never be forgotten, and their legacy must be remembered. Indeed, my father served in the British Indian Army. In order to keep these stories alive, will the Minister agree that it would be a good idea to include them as part of school curriculums?

Currently, more than 6,000 personnel from Commonwealth countries are serving in the UK armed forces, with more being recruited each year to fill technical and specialist roles. Despite the sacrifice that the many Commonwealth personnel have made, they are faced with fees of £2,389 if they wish to apply to continue to live in the country that they have served for four years. Speaker after speaker today has touched on that point, and I hope that the Minister will convey the message to the Government so that we can have change. The Government must drop the visa fees for Commonwealth personnel and their families.

With the upcoming Heads of Government meeting in June, we have a perfect opportunity to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the Commonwealth. The theme for this year’s meeting is “Delivering a Common Future: Connecting, Innovating, Transforming”. Five sub-themes have also been identified: governance and the rule of law, IT and innovation, youth, environment and trade.

There is no doubt that the diversity of the Commonwealth is a strength, and our Commonwealth diaspora communities are at the heart of that. As Members have rightly identified, in 2022 the Commonwealth games will be held in Birmingham, a city that is rich in diversity and culture. I remember when Manchester hosted the Commonwealth games in 2002; what a proud moment that was for our city. It brought tremendous opportunity, as I am sure it will do for Birmingham. I look forward to the UK hosting the iconic games once again and celebrating the power of bringing people together and making connections across the UK and the Commonwealth.

Another strength of the Commonwealth is its 1.4 billion young people, who will help to define our future. It is vital that the Commonwealth demonstrates its relevance to the youth by representing their interests and showing commitment to tackling the climate crisis, prioritising girls’ education and ensuring LGBT rights.

The Commonwealth, in all its diversity, champions religious freedom, but the ongoing violence in India and the discrimination against religious minorities in many Commonwealth countries reminds us of our shared responsibility to uphold and protect the fundamental human right to freedom of religion or belief. No one should be persecuted for their faith. The upcoming Heads of Government meeting will provide a useful platform for discussion. It is worth noting that it will take place in Rwanda, where an unprecedented amount of human rights violations have taken place.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is speaking on the issue of freedom of religious belief; it is really important that all the Commonwealth countries respect freedom of religious belief. It is about respect, tolerance and love for all. That is something that we can all take on board, but all countries need to absorb it and live it out, too.

[Afzal Khan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments; I am looking forward to his Westminster Hall debate on Wednesday and hope to join him. I hope that the Minister will commit to raising human rights violations in the Commonwealth at this prime opportunity.

A strong and united Commonwealth must be able to tackle the crisis in the light of the current coronavirus outbreak. Will the Minister tell us what assistance the UK will provide to vulnerable countries in the Commonwealth with insecure health systems?

In conclusion, the Commonwealth is a diverse family of nations that, by virtue of historical and cultural ties and shared values, seeks to find solutions and share common goals. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown highlighted, there is a gap between the Commonwealth’s emphasis on human rights and the reality on the ground in many member states. We should be focusing on promoting democratic values and developing and amplifying the voices of small states; upholding human rights and LGBT rights; and tackling global challenges such as extremism and climate change. The potential for the Commonwealth is vast, but to ensure that that potential is realised, we have a responsibility to promote the common principles throughout the Commonwealth, along with all our other human rights goals.

Corrosive Substance Attacks

Debate between Jim Shannon and Afzal Khan

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in Westminster Hall at any time, but especially so after the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown). She compassionately, directly and consistently puts forward her point of view. We have had Adjournment debates in the main Chamber and we have discussed the matter with Government in the past. We all feel very strongly, which is why I want to add my contribution.

It is nice to see the new Minister in her place—I wish her well—and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), in hers. I hope we can look forward to a contribution from us all that is of one mind and one voice, and I hope that the Minister’s reply will be of that one voice. We look forward to that.

The issue of corrosive substance attacks is one that seems foreign to me, to be honest, and I cannot understand for a minute the things described by the hon. Member for West Ham. She has had direct experience through her constituents, but it seems a bit like “The Twilight Zone”, happening somewhere else and not real—but it is real. That is what the hon. Lady has described.

I cannot begin to understand how anyone might think of going out with acid, intending to throw it at someone. I cannot fathom that evil or understand how anyone can feel in any way that that is what they should do when the after effects are so gross. I do not understand the hatred that someone must feel to consider taking an action that will so horribly disfigure someone for life—I am thinking here of the lady whose story was told by the hon. Member for West Ham, because that story is very real for me, on paper if not in reality, after she told us about it. I cannot fathom how on earth someone could be so despicable as to want to burn through other people’s flesh with acid and watch them suffer. Just because I cannot fathom it, that does not mean it does not happen. It does happen, it is happening more and we need to do our part to legislate against it.

The hon. Lady clearly outlined a number of issues that the Government should respond to, and I suggest they would be good ways to take the legislation forward and are what we might wish to see. I will mention some of my thoughts as the debate proceeds.

In the past, before acid attacks became more prevalent in London and parts of the UK, my knowledge of them came through my position as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I have had occasion to have direct contact with some of the groups in Iran that were, unfortunately, able to supply some very graphic evidence—pictorial and video—of attacks on people there. Those people were subject to acid attacks simply because they had a different religious opinion, simply because they were women and simply because they spoke on behalf of other women for equality and human rights. How can anyone feel justified in attacking those ladies, disfiguring them for life, with some of them losing their eyesight as well? I just cannot come to terms with the horribleness and brutality of it all.

I want to have this on the record, although again it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but through her good offices she will make my comments known, and perhaps those of other Members, that we are very concerned about Iran and what is happening there. The attacks are brutal and painful.

I recently highlighted the acid attacks in Iran and was appalled at the damage caused. Then to learn that acid attacks in England and Wales have more than doubled since 2012 certainly reminded me that evil is restricted to no postcode and that those attacks are happening worldwide. We need to address them in whatever way is necessary.

Figures from the Metropolitan police, which the hon. Member for West Ham referred to in her introduction, show that men are twice as likely to be victims of acid attacks in London as women. The attacks have been linked to gang crimes—there is a gang culture that sees acid purchased as a weapon. People do not need to have a gun or a knife; they can use acid, which will leave lasting physical and visual effects, which are another way of scoring, so to speak, but the others respond as well.

The vast majority of cases, however, never reach trial. Again, this is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I pose the question: why is that the case? Is it down to evidence? The evidence may be very clear, but perhaps it is down to those who wish to make complaints, or it is the response of the police. We need to ask ourselves why such cases are not reaching trial and what we must do to facilitate the successful trial of someone who makes the decision to carry out that heinous act. Today, at long last—thank the Lord for it—we had a sentence that equals the crime, with 20 years for a person who blatantly, directly and without any recognition of the people, attacked a number of them in a nightclub in London. The sentence gave me, and I suspect all of us, heart.

In the news, Dr Simon Harding, a criminologist and expert on gangs at Middlesex University, commented that acid is fast becoming a “weapon of first choice” and:

“Acid throwing is a way of showing dominance, power and control, building enormous fear among gang peer groups”—

the hon. Member for West Ham referred to that in her speech. When I read that, I was horrified, but even more horrified to realise that to use acid is becoming a calculated move. The debate today is therefore very timely, and it is appropriate to discuss the subject. We look to the Minister and to the Government for how best to respond.

Many people have the idea that there are advantages to using acid to hurt someone rather than a knife: they will not kill someone, but disfigure them for life, disadvantaging them in what they can cope with and leaving women especially with a disfigurement, which means vastly more to them—I mean no disrespect to men. We must look at the fact that the charges are more serious for someone caught with a knife and the tariff for prison sentences much higher. As I said earlier, we are very pleased about the sentence from the courts we read about today—perhaps that is the start of something. Will the Minister respond to that?

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I also put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) for securing this very important debate. The hon. Gentleman was talking about such cases and the courts, and I have some concerns. First, the CPS has new powers to produce community impact statements. Fear goes through the community whenever this sort of attack happens, so it is important to get such assessment reports before the courts so that when they sentence, they take them into account. Secondly, the figures from the London boroughs show a large number of incidents in areas that are ethnically very diverse. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the CPS and the police should pay attention to that and consider whether they are therefore aggravated offences, pressing charges that will take that into account?

[Jim Shannon]

I agree with hon. Gentleman. I asked the Minister in an earlier comment where we are with the trial process, and why it seems that many cases do not get to trial. Is there a problem with the police, or with the CPS? Whatever it is, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and we need to put that on record.

Dr Harding added that,

“acid is likely to attract a ‘GBH with intent’ charge”—

in other words, not the same seriousness—

“while using a knife is more likely to lead to the attacker being charged with attempted murder”.

We need to have hard court action and the sentencing that is necessary. We perhaps need a new vigour from the police and from the CPS. The fact that that could be case—that an acid attack would be grievous bodily harm with intent, and would not be equalised to using a knife and attempted murder—disgusts me. It is clear that we need to legislate for that.

Times have changed, and in the same way as we are legislating for online offences, we need to move with the times and legislate accordingly for the sort of crime we are discussing. Online offences were never on the books, but unfortunately, the way of hurting people is changing. We need to legislate so that no gang member thinks, “I will use acid so that it will be easier on me if I end up getting caught”. We need to make changes and make sure that he or she understands that what they are doing will have repercussions.

I was greatly touched by the courageous tale of Katie Piper, as I am sure all hon. Members were. I know her story from having read about it in the press. I could not read that story and not be touched by it. She showed intensely personal and private images in order to highlight the sheer horror of an attack and the length of time that it takes to even begin the healing process physically and emotionally. It has shown that we need to change the legislation and we need to represent those people who are attacked.

I sincerely urge the Government to take all the arguments into consideration and put acid attacks on a par with knife violence crimes, to ensure that the sentence fits the crime. This crime leaves a life destroyed and a person undergoing perhaps 20 operations or more and still unable to breathe or walk without horrific pain. I applaud Katie Piper and others like her for putting their face to this crime and I stand with all victims who say that the attitude towards this crime must change. That must begin as a matter of urgency in this House.