Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I remind Members that we currently have a 15-minute guide limit for speeches, so please help each other so that as many Members as possible can speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like your advice. Mr Speaker said that more than 90 people wish to speak in the debate. We have been debating the amendments for an hour and a half and four speeches have been made. If we go to 2 o’clock, that will mean fewer than 20 speakers. I understand that whether a closure motion can be moved is at the discretion of the Chair. If we have not got past, let us say, 20 or 30 Members speaking in the debate, can you give us any indication of whether, if you are still in the Chair, you would accept a closure motion at that point?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. We are currently asking Members to keep their contributions to 15 minutes and that, of course, will be reassessed very shortly—I can give him assurances about that.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, since I have been in the Chamber, I have received the truly awful news that three people died last night in a fire in Bicester, including two members of the Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) has had to leave the Chamber to liaise with those on the ground and we both want to take this opportunity, if we may, to convey our deep sorrow for and solidarity with the families of those who have died, and our fervent and heartfelt best wishes to the two firefighters who remain in a serious condition. We are grateful for their heroism and that of their colleagues when, as ever, they ran towards danger to serve us all. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

I rise to speak in favour of new clause 16 and amendment 14, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak. When the Bill first came before the House, I was a Minister attending Cabinet and therefore unable to speak on the subject. I genuinely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and every single Member who served for so many hours on the Bill Committee for this incredibly important Bill. I also thank the hundreds of my constituents who have contacted me with their views. I genuinely believe that every single one of them was motivated by compassion and a determination to reduce suffering, and in many cases their views were shaped by their experience of death and of suffering in life. I know that that is the case for many of us in the Chamber as well, so I hope that the same spirit of respect that we saw previously will continue throughout the passage of the Bill, whatever our views may be.

New clause 16(1)(a) would exclude from the scope of the Bill those who do not want to be a burden on others or on public services, and paragraph (b) would exclude those experiencing a mental disorder, including depression. On the former, we have discussed this morning whether it is appropriate to mention international analogies. They will, of course, be instrumentalised by those who have different views about this important subject. I have personally found survey evidence from the Oregon example of people expressing that they felt they were a burden to be highly compelling. I do not believe that it indicates that that was the primary reason why they sought assisted dying, but I believe that it is an important piece of evidence that we need to take into account.

I also believe that we need to look at situations where people who are potentially subject to coercion have been evaluated by professionals in our society, and where we might be concerned about the outcomes. I ask for Members’ understanding here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

I supported the Bill on Second Reading on condition that it would be strengthened to tackle the issue of capacity. Does the right hon. Lady accept that the Bill that we see today is very different from the one that we saw on Second Reading? There is a requirement for capacity. If there is any doubt at all, a doctor is compelled to report that person for additional assessment, and independent advocates have been introduced for people with learning disabilities, autism or mental disorders. Social workers are now included in the panel of experts, specific training on mental capacity is required, and there is a disability advisory board too. Does the right hon. Lady—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I agree that the Bill has been improved, but there is a difference between mental capacity, at least as assessed by medical professionals, and the presence of mental disorder. I know the Committee examined that subject at length. It was very clear from the discussion in Committee that it anticipated that elements such as being able to assess information and make judgments between alternatives would be covered by the mental capacity provisions—but the evaluation of those alternatives, which can be impacted by mental disorder, is not part of that process. The reality is that those subject to a number of mental disorders—including, sadly, eating disorders—may be highly intelligent and may well be able to carry out many logical procedures to assess information, but their evaluation of the value of their future life and their assessment of the value of bodily control, in relation to other factors, are different from those of someone who is not ill. I believe that issue has not been fully understood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am aware of what my hon. Friend quite rightly refers to. Of course, any such condition would have to be coterminous with a terminal illness, but we know—the Committee thrashed this out for a long period—that depression is often present at the same time as a diagnosis of terminal illness. We also know that concepts such as “terminal anorexia” have started to be used in certain contexts. That unfortunately suggests that, despite the many protestations of those who understandably support the Bill, there is the possibility that those subject to eating disorders will be pulled within its scope. I am very pleased that amendment 14 would rule that out—it is important that it does so. It is critical that this Chamber sends that message too, given the potential confusion about scope.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak to new clause 16 and amendment 14. Above all, I hope we can continue this important discussion, which is critical for so many of our constituents.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I wish to speak to new clauses 16 and 17. Rather than giving my own views, I think that powerful testimony on behalf of someone who actually runs a care home should be heard by the House. I want to quote, as briefly as possible, Dan Hayes, who runs the Orders of St John Care Trust, which runs care homes in Lincoln generally and in my constituency:

“we believe that the Bill as drafted is flawed, and the risks to older, vulnerable people, residing within social care environments are substantial.

We believe that any assumption by those drafting the final legislation that it is not intended for use by those living with conditions regarded as part of the ageing process, would be mistaken. Any legislation would be immediately tested and assumed to be accessible to such a cohort of people.

To that end we believe that in order to provide the necessary protections to such a vulnerable part of our society, the Bill must be explicit in its reference to older people living in residential services.”

That is why these new clauses are so important. He continues:

“The Bill must take account of the current unfairness and instability at the heart of our social care system, and question whether such legislation can be introduced whilst such problems exist.

The Bill must recognise that an individual health/social care professional’s ability to remove themselves from the process of Assisted Dying is so difficult, that specific exclusion of the care home sector should be a feature of the Bill. In any case, organisations, and sites, should be given the ability to exclude themselves from the act of an assisted death without prejudice to their approval as providers of services to the state.”

We have experience of that, with regard to Catholic adoption agencies. There is a real risk that some care homes may feel they have to withdraw from this sector. I will carry on quoting:

“Those that fund their own care pay substantial sums, often saved for over a lifetime—including property wealth. These savings will have been set aside for retirement and to pass on to loved ones. Instead, they are used to fund the costs of their own residential care, and to substantially subsidise the state.

We see the real prospect that those that might fit the criteria for assisted dying under the Bill, but have no wish to accelerate their death, would feel an immediate dilemma between prolonging their own lives, and the future quality of life of their loved ones. For illustrative purposes, the six-month period stated within the current Bill would equate to between £25,000 and £40,000 of expense borne by an individual paying for their own residential care in the current system.

Failings in the system mean that older people who should not be in hospital are held there, causing a burden to the NHS, and Local Authorities face an ever-growing proportion of funding needed to support social care, without a proportionate increase in funding from central government.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before I call the next speaker, I will be asking Members after him to limit their comments to eight minutes.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for introducing the Bill and for giving me the opportunity to serve on the Bill Committee.

I rise to speak in favour of my amendment 4, which goes to the very heart of what the Bill is all about: dignity, compassion and choice at the end of life.

Gaza: UK Assessment

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am looking to finish this urgent question at around 2 o’clock, so I would appreciate it if Members kept their questions pithy and the Minister kept his answers pithy, as would the rest of the House.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I have recently returned from a visit to the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). We were expecting an appalling situation, but it was far, far worse. Israeli Ministers are gleefully calling for the bombing of food warehouses because they believe it will help bring victory—in their eyes. It is clear that Israeli hostages are being used as a pretext to continue the slaughter and starvation in Gaza.

Although I recognise the Minister’s sincere compassion in the way he has expressed himself on this issue, it is clear that he comes to this Chamber with a straitjacket around him. What we need here is the Prime Minister, who can make the decisions; otherwise, we are not going to see any action on arms supplies, on trade or in any other area, including recognition of the state of Palestine. If the Minister cannot do those things, can he at least recognise the right of Palestinians to statehood?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call the Minister.

[Mr Falconer]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was able to travel; as I have said before from the Dispatch Box, I recognise the importance of Members from across the House seeing these situations up close and being able to form their own judgments. I am the relevant Minister, and I speak with the authority of the Government.

Middle East Update

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the middle east. Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the Israeli Security Cabinet has approved a plan to expand and intensify Israel’s military operations in Gaza. He said that the Israel Defence Forces operations will extend across more of Gaza. Tactics will no longer involve short raids, with the implication that Israel will hold the ground it takes. Reports suggest that the plans could include full military occupation of the Gaza strip. Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Gaza’s population will be moved “for its protection”. Tens of thousands of reservists are being called up. In parallel, the Security Cabinet reportedly approved a plan to deliver aid through private companies.

This comes at a time when the scale of civilian suffering and humanitarian need is already intolerable. More than 52,000 people have now been killed in Gaza. Israel has fully blocked the entry of humanitarian aid for over two months. The World Food Programme says its food stockpile has been exhausted. The announcements from the Israeli Government have rightly sparked grave concern that this conflict, which has already wrought so much bloodshed and suffering, may enter a dangerous new phase. I know that concern will be felt right across the House.

Let me make the Government position crystal clear: we strongly oppose the expansion of Israel’s operations. Any attempt to annex land in Gaza would be unacceptable. Palestinian territory must not be reduced or subjected to any demographic change. We want this war to end. We want an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, the urgent provision of humanitarian aid and a pathway to a political solution.

We all recognise that Hamas continue to hold hostages in the cruellest fashion. Their actions show their complete disregard for the interests of the Palestinian people. Hamas must not divert aid for their own financial gain or use civilian infrastructure for military purposes. We repeat our demand for the immediate release of the hostages, but an expansion of this conflict is not the route to achieve their safe return. That is why it is so strongly opposed by so many hostages’ families. Negotiations offer the best hope of ending the agony of those waiting for loved ones who are held captive, alleviating the suffering of civilians, and ending Hamas’s control of Gaza. It is evident that Hamas cannot be defeated through military means alone. An expansion of military operations will result in the deaths of more innocent civilians and put the hostages at yet greater risk. The fighting must stop.

The Government have said since day one in office that the only way to ensure a path towards long-term peace and stability is an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages, better protection of civilians and significantly more aid entering Gaza. Diplomacy is how we ensure security for Israelis and Palestinians, not more bloodshed. All the people of this region deserve to live in peace, prosperity and security. We urge all parties urgently to return to talks, implement the ceasefire agreement in full and work towards a permanent peace. We continue to use our full diplomatic weight to bring about a ceasefire and end the suffering.

After more than two months of aid into Gaza being blocked, Palestinians continue to face immense suffering. Essential supplies of food and medicine are either no longer available or quickly running out. As the United Nations has already said, it is hard to see how, if implemented, the new Israeli plan to deliver aid through private companies would be consistent with humanitarian principles and meet the scale of the need. We need urgent clarity from the Israeli Government on their intentions.

We must remember what is at stake. These humanitarian principles matter for every conflict around the world. They should be applied consistently in every war zone. As we have said repeatedly, humanitarian aid must never be used as a political tool, and Israel is bound under international law to allow the unhindered passage of humanitarian aid. I repeat my call for Israel to engage with partners to allow for a rapid and unhindered resurgence in the flow of aid into Gaza.

We reiterate our outrage at recent strikes by Israeli forces on humanitarian workers, infrastructure and healthcare facilities. Israel must do far more to protect the civilian population and humanitarian workers, and hold to account those who are responsible. Over a year since the appalling attack on the World Central Kitchen, in which three British nationals were tragically killed, we continue to press for a conclusion to the Israeli investigation and a decision as to whether criminal proceedings will be brought. The UN and humanitarian partners must be able to carry out their work in safety, in accordance with their principles.

Last week, we welcomed Prime Minister Mustafa of the Palestinian Authority to the United Kingdom. We signed a landmark memorandum of understanding and confirmed a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We will continue to support the Palestinian Authority as the only legitimate governing entity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including in Gaza. During that visit, we reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to a two-state solution. Only a political horizon of moving towards a two-state solution can ensure the long-term peace and security of both Palestinians and Israelis. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Foreign Minister, Dame Priti Patel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

I know the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend and of so many Members on the Benches behind me and, indeed, across the House. It is obviously a source of great anguish to me and all in the Government that we continue, this far into our government, to not have the ceasefire in place that we have long called for. We are working with our allies to try to persuade Israel to change course. As he will know, I will not comment on sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but we have been as clear as we can on our position in relation to the many areas we have discussed in the House week after week, month after month where there has been a failure to see improvement, whether that is the protection of civilians or aid into Gaza. We will, of course, continue to discuss all other matters in relation to this fraught and tragic situation with our close partners, as he would expect.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Israeli Government’s decision to approve plans for an expanded offensive, summarised by officials as the “conquest” of Gaza, is disgraceful. It will wreak more devastation and displacement on Palestinians after months of bombardment. It will also narrow the path back to a ceasefire, while severely harming the chances of getting the remaining hostages in Hamas’s captivity back to Israel alive. Does the Minister agree that if the Israeli Government carried out their threat to seize and hold Gaza, that would constitute a further flagrant breach of international law? In that instance, what would this Government’s response be?

The latest aid blockade of Gaza has now lasted for more than 60 days. The UN has described it as a “growing humanitarian catastrophe”. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s latest proposal to deliver aid through private companies at military hubs appears to contravene basic principles of international humanitarian law, including the neutrality of aid, and has been criticised by aid organisations as dangerous and unworkable.

The Israeli Government’s refusal to reopen aid routes is utterly unacceptable and contravenes their obligations as an occupying power. We welcomed the Government’s pledge of a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. However, without more action to secure the reopening of aid pathways, this new package will provide limited relief for Palestinians suffering in the strip. Can the Minister provide details on how the Government are working with international partners to pressure the Israeli Government to allow their aid to reach Gaza? Can he update the House on whether contingency measures are being considered to ensure that aid reaches those suffering in Gaza, even if the Israeli Government continue to block the direct supply of aid into the strip?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

We have heard throughout the afternoon all the things in Gaza that have been committed by Israel. The truth of the matter is that Israel is committing the cold-blooded murder of medics, civilians, UN staff and even many aid workers in the aid flotilla in international waters. In the west bank, there are more than 500,000 illegal settlers, and illegal violent settlers using force, backed by the IDF and the Israelis, have been killing and maiming people. Does that not show that the actions of Israel have been all about occupying Gaza and the west bank and that, as Israeli Cabinet Ministers have been saying, Israel basically wants a full Judea and Samaria and that it will not stop at Gaza or the west bank, but continue?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before I bring in the Minister, may I ask hon. Members and the Minister to make their questions and answers a little bit shorter?

[Mr Falconer]

Let me restate the British Government’s position in relation to the west bank and the Gaza strip: we hope that both those territories will be a vital part of a single Palestinian state and that is the objective towards which we strive.

London Sudan Conference

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Let me begin by supporting the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and congratulating him on securing what is a very important urgent question.

Many millions of innocent Sudanese civilians have been caught up in what is a barbaric conflict. They deserve peace and dignity. They are facing the most appalling, dire humanitarian crisis. It is a fact that red lines have been crossed in the conflict, and that cannot be allowed to stand. We all want to help chart a course to a meaningful peace for the people of Sudan, and we are aware of the various pillars articulated in the London Sudan conference statement. We all agree on the need for an immediate end to the fighting, on preventing the partition of Sudan, and on the need for urgent humanitarian access.

Crucially, the Foreign Secretary’s conference did not see any new practical measures agreed with the African Union and other partners to help the warring parties into a ceasefire and an end to the conflict, and, importantly, to deter the ways in which the conflict is being escalated, because there has been no de-escalation whatsoever. Supporting a transition to a civilian-led Government is clearly crucial, and it must be led by the Sudanese people. What practical diplomacy are the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary doing to help international processes such as Cairo to stay on track and to build confidence among the Sudanese civilian and political forces?

Finally, the Minister mentioned the additional £120 million in humanitarian aid announced by the Government for 2025-26. Will he inform us which organisations the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is partnering with for the delivery of this new aid, whether delivery has started and whether it is actually making any impact whatsoever? Will he also confirm that in parallel to announcing this new aid, he is working to keep border crossings open and pressing for the proper safety nets to ensure that this aid ends up with those who genuinely need it, and not in the wrong hands?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put the focus on violence against women and girls in Sudan. It is absolutely appalling—the latest reports are lurid and graphic in their details of what is befalling women and children right across Sudan. The Minister for Africa has been leading international efforts to maintain a spotlight on these questions. He chaired a UN Security Council briefing on conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan just last month, and was also at the UN Security Council in November further highlighting this issue. This conflict is disproportionately affecting women and children, and the UK will remain completely focused on doing everything we can to bring that to a close.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Sudan conference in London presented an opportunity to generate international consensus for a path to peace in Sudan’s civil war, the world’s largest conflict. It was deeply disappointing that the conference failed to establish a contact group for the conflict, as such a group could build international political will to move towards an end to the fighting. Will the Minister therefore outline what new diplomatic initiatives he will pursue to establish a contact group?

I welcome the announcement of £120 million more for humanitarian aid, but with aid access being wielded as a weapon of war on both sides, can the Minister assure us that it will reach civilians?

Gender-based violence is a terrible feature of the war, so what steps can be taken to protect women and children? I am also deeply concerned by reports that other nations are supplying arms to the warring factions, particularly the reports that the United Arab Emirates have provided weapons to the Rapid Support Forces, which are alleged to have committed mass civilian killings and are accused by the US of genocide in Darfur. Will the Minister outline what steps he has taken to stop the flow of arms to ensure that British exports are not used in Sudan?

UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am imposing an immediate five-minute limit. I call Manuela Perteghella.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am now imposing an immediate three-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joani Reid]

I absolutely agree.

I want to give Members a sense of what I have reported to X, which I have been told does not meet its threshold for action and I can just block the accounts if I want to. Here are some of the comments being directed at me:

“Why are Jews allowed to invest in politicians in the UK?”

“Are you Jewish? Most Jewish children are weak and neurotic and struggle to understand things the way advanced Aryan children do.”

“You are not well-bred. You are 1/4 tainted of Jewish blood. This softens the heart and darkens the soul.”

In relation to the Holocaust, I have been told it “didn’t happen, mate.” That didn’t reach X’s harmful content threshold and was allowed to continue.

These people operate with impunity in this country. Transparency in the algorithms, proactive content moderation and genuine co-operation with regulators such as Ofcom should absolutely not be optional. Tech companies must understand that accessing our markets and citizens carries clear responsibilities and that if they want to operate here, they need to obey the law of our land. This is not about stifling innovation or freedom; it is about—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Noah Law.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

The strength of our democracy lies in its people—their voices, concerns and participation. The Labour party that I know has always been a party of the grassroots, particularly in Cornwall, and of real individuals engaging with real communities. We are not the party of faceless bots, anonymous profiles or foreign interference. Yet, as we reflect on last year’s general election, we must confront the unsettling reality that the integrity of our democratic process is under threat from hostile actors and unaccountable digital platforms, such as those we have heard about today.

In my constituency I have seen the manipulation at first hand. The administrators of the local Reform UK Facebook group—supposedly representing my constituency —are not local at all. Not a single one that I can see has anything to do with my constituency. Many cannot even be identified as real individuals. This is not grassroots activism; it is astroturfing—an insidious form of political manipulation where orchestrated campaigns masquerade as spontaneous grassroots movements, misleading and deceiving the public.

That is not an isolated case. Across the UK, our election was tainted by misinformation on an unprecedented scale. These were not spontaneous expressions of a democratic electorate, but the work of malign domestic and foreign actors, deliberately interfering to distort the public discourse. The power of those platforms to spread falsehoods rapidly and without scrutiny undermines trust in our political system.

Undoubtedly, the owners of the platforms wield immense influence on our public discourse. Their decisions on content moderation, as we have heard, shape what information is disseminated and trusted. The fact that one such owner has openly endorsed figures convicted of hate crimes, such as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, is appalling, signalling how those with immense digital influence can amplify those voices. These are not neutral platforms but ideological battlegrounds, and right now the scales are tipped in favour of disinformation. Labour stands for a different vision of politics; a politics built on real people, engagement and communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

A serious allegation was made recently that Liberal Democrats spend too much time in our communities fixing church roofs and are not on Twitter. Well, last night I logged back on, and let me tell the House that Twitter was absolutely brilliant. The quality and depth of political debate really was something to behold. Liberals and authoritarians, nationalists and internationalists, and people from the economic right, left and centre were engaging in well-informed, expansive and thoughtful debate about the most pressing issues of the day. I jest, of course—it was a total waste of time for everybody involved, including me.

Elon Musk has made Twitter useful for some people, though. I refer to those on the hard right of politics, who are profiting by sowing the seeds of division. They are not just profiting politically, but lining their pockets with the money of social media barons. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have already told the Member to whom I am about to refer that I intend to refer to him today, because his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests is revealing. The leader of Reform, the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), has declared more than £10,000 in earnings from one particular source since he was elected. The address of the payer is in Market Square. I know what Members are all thinking: “It’s the charming covered market in Clacton”. No, that closed in 2022. It is Elon Musk’s X, based in Market Square in San Francisco, California. He has also declared more than £14,000 in earnings from Google, £98,000 from Cameo, based in Chicago, and more than £2,700 from Meta in California.

One wonders where the Member for Clacton finds the time. As a 2024 intake MP, I encounter colleagues who basically do not have time to go to the loo. On a more philosophical note, for someone who claims to be a patriot, he is certainly taking a lot of money from international sources. That should give us all pause for thought when we consider the impact of digital platforms on democracy. We might conclude at the very least that it distracts some MPs from doing their actual job—and I do not mean the distraction of doom-scrolling; I mean the distraction of the grift.

What of the broader threats presented by social media platforms? We have spoken on many occasions recently about the issues that young men face and the impact on democracy. It is my belief that, at heart, those issues are the symptoms of many problems, including the tone of debate about the roles and responsibilities of boys as they become men, a lack of routes to secure employment, and ludicrously high housing and rental prices. For someone who is stuck in their childhood bedroom looking for reasons why their life is rubbish, the digital world has no shortage of scapegoats: women, minorities, LGBT+ people, immigrants, foreigners, refugees, disabled people, the weak, single-parent families—the list goes on.

There is also no shortage of snake oil salesmen out there to tell them who to blame and what they can do about it. Andrew Tate tells us it is the fault of women. I can tell any young men listening at home that nobody outside the manosphere wants to see pictures of bald middle-aged men with their tops off—I know from personal experience. My social media followers and, more importantly, my friends left me in no doubt about what a plonker I looked after I posted a photo of myself at Cheltenham Lido. Those who idolise Tate would do well to heed that advice.

Jordan Peterson, another big thinker on the right, gives brilliant advice to young men. He tells them they must make themselves physically strong so that they can find a mate and get rich and powerful, or they will end up dying poor and alone, perhaps with melted brains like crustaceans defeated in a violent fight in the depths of the ocean. I am pretty sure that is not true. The lads should not worry about it, but so many do, thanks to these snake oil sellers online.

Thanks to President Trump and those who argue for a bizarre form of freedom of speech—just not for everyone—the truth is now a contested concept, and it is intertwined with fear and hatred, which are both a threat to our democracy. We all know where the truth goes to die: whichever social media platform you like. You just start posting outlandish stuff. You keep going. You double down. You find a mad and hateful narrative. You tell everyone it is free speech, and before you know it, you might be lucky enough to become a successful online grifter with your top off. Perhaps you will be an MP, or maybe even the President of America.

Two days ago it was April fool’s day. I hate April fool’s day, because the world is now so ludicrous that we do not know what is a joke and what is not. Even worse, what we post as a joke might end up being shared so many times that it becomes somebody else’s truth eventually. In the worst case, that becomes part of a hate-fuelled conspiracy theory. I will not mention it; everyone here knows what it is. There are many increasingly popular conspiracy theories online that have nothing to do with hatred but are plainly bizarre. I will not name them here for the sake of all our inboxes, but every single one of those outlandish claims is a threat to our democracy, and those views are going round the world quicker and quicker thanks to social media.

What should we in this place be doing about it? While digital and social media platforms can be good for democracy, they are inherently vulnerable to misinformation and abuse, and they reduce the quality of public debate. We need look no further than the riots following the tragic Southport attacks. That tragedy for those little girls and their families was compounded for so many by what happened in the following days, when people were whipped up into a frenzy by false rumours leading to more violence. Musk’s X, Zuckerberg’s Meta and other social media companies facilitate that spreading of misinformation, and they have made it entirely clear to all of us that they do not care.

Let us face it: platforms such as TikTok and Snapchat are making our children sad and depressed, they are putting a check on the development of the adults of the future, and they absolutely cannot be trusted. Musk used his purchase of Twitter to further leverage his influence over the world’s largest democracy. He changed the rules to boost his own posts and push aside those he disagrees with—freedom of speech, but for some more than others.

From his own platform, the world’s richest man has made several direct interruptions in our democracy. Last summer he sought to further incite disorder, posting that in the UK “Civil war is inevitable”. He also called for America to

“liberate the people of Britain”

and overthrow the UK Government, and he has suggested he might bankroll the Reform party. While I have some sympathy for Ministers dealing with Trump, do they really think it is wise to be so gentle with him when his right-hand man, Musk, has called for them to be forcibly ejected from office? I realise that Ministers are limited in what they can say, but I am pretty sure I know what they think. Regardless of diplomatic norms, this is plainly absurd. Worse than that, it makes our once strong nation look weak.

What should we do? Social media companies must take a larger role in tackling misinformation. It is clear that they will not do it without Government intervention, and they need to get on with it. Liberal Democrats believe that stricter regulations must be introduced to ensure that they properly challenge the spread of misinformation on their platforms. We must stand up to them. We must intervene to protect our democracy. As a liberal, I believe that unchecked power and wealth are inherently dangerous, and I often take my whip from John Stuart Mill, who warned:

“the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods…which all experience refutes.”

We must heed that warning.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)]

I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing the debate. I join her in honouring the memory of our dear colleagues Sir David Amess and Jo Cox. I am grateful to her and to all the other speakers for their incredibly powerful and insightful contributions to the debate.

The Government share the hon. Member’s concerns about the impact that online harassment, intimidation, abuse, misinformation and disinformation have on our democracy. Existing and emerging technologies have led to changes in the information environment and will continue to shape our future, but it is, and will always be, an absolute priority for the UK Government to protect our democracy, and we remain well-prepared to do so with robust systems in place. I was grateful to the hon. Member for sharing her experiences. The House should hear about the online abuse and hate that she has faced. There is no place for that, and I thank her for sharing it.

The Government are committed to combating violence against women and girls. The Online Safety Act requires Ofcom to develop and enforce guidance for tech companies, which aims to ensure that platforms implement measures to reduce harm to women and girls online. The Act imposes legal responsibility on online platforms, including social media platforms, gaming platforms, dating apps and search engines, to protect users from illegal content and material that is harmful to children and to address issues that disproportionately affect women and girls. Those measures reflect the Government’s commitment to creating a safer online environment, acknowledging the unique challenge faced by women and girls in the digital space. In putting that guidance together, Ofcom consulted with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and experts in the field.

The effectiveness of those measures depends on their robust implementation and enforcement, which we will monitor closely. As the hon. Member knows, the implementation of the Online Safety Act started only in spring this year. While we know it is a landmark Act, it is not perfect, so the Government will continue to keep it under review, and we will not shy away from strengthening it where required. As I said, the Act is already being implemented. We will introduce protections to protect people from illegal content, such as child sexual abuse and terrorist material, as well as to protect children from harmful material. I make it clear to the House and to all Members who raised this issue that that is not up for negotiation.

The hon. Member also raised the issue of banning smartphones for under-16s. The Government will consider all options in pursuit of children’s online safety. However, it is important that the Government take evidence-based action in recognition of the need to balance safety with allowing children to use technology positively. I am sure she is also aware that in November last year, the Department announced a study using methods and data to understand the impact of smartphones and social media on children. The study began in December last year and will run for six months until May 2025, and I am sure we will report to the House on that.

I come back to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). I take this opportunity to thank her for all the support she gave me and many of my colleagues when she served on the Front Bench in opposition and when we came into government. I look forward to seeing her on the Front Bench again soon; I hope she does not spend too long on the Back Benches.

My right hon. Friend raised the issue of the unrest last year. During that unrest, the Department worked with major platforms to tackle content contributing to the disorder, which included proactively referring content to platforms that assessed and acted on it in line with their terms of service. Throughout our engagement, we have been very clear that social media platforms should not wait for the Online Safety Act to come into action: they should actively be removing harmful content.

My right hon. Friend also raised the issue of broader international collaboration on online safety, with which I absolutely agree. International collaboration is absolutely crucial in tackling the global threat of online harms, and we must build consensus around approaches that uphold our democratic values and promote a free, open and secure internet.

As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said, since 2022, the Elections Act has protected candidates, campaigners and elected office holders from intimidation, both online and in person. It is an election offence for a person to make or publish, before or during an election, a false statement of fact about a candidate’s personal character or conduct, for the purpose of affecting the return for that candidate at the election, if the person does not believe it to be true. This provides a reasonable check and balance against malicious smear campaigns.

We also have the defending democracy taskforce, which has a mandate to drive forward a whole-Government response to the full range of threats to our democracy. That taskforce reports to the National Security Council and is comprised of Ministers and senior officials, as well as representatives of law enforcement, the UK intelligence community, the parliamentary authorities and the Electoral Commission. In April 2023, the task- force set up the joint election security and preparedness unit—JESP, for short—as a permanent function dedicated to protecting UK elections and referendums. It monitors and mitigates risks related to the security of elections, including those posed by artificial intelligence, misinformation and disinformation. JESP stood up an election cell for the 2024 elections, which co-ordinated a wide range of teams across Government to respond to issues as they emerged, including issues to do with protective security, cyber-threats, and misinformation and disinformation.

An election cell has been stood up for the upcoming local elections. Firm steps are being taken to ensure the security of candidates and campaigners. That happened during last year’s election, and will happen again for the upcoming local elections. Candidates were issued with security advice, and guidance was made available on gov.uk about the risks they face, including from AI and disinformation. That guidance brought together expertise from across the security community, including from the police and the National Cyber Security Centre, to help candidates implement quick and effective personal protective measures. I have only recently looked at that guidance, and I recommend that all candidates take a look. There was also an investment of £31 million over financial year 2024-25 to strengthen protective security measures for MPs, locally elected representatives and candidates.

As reported by the Electoral Commission, last year’s UK general election was delivered safely and securely. Certain novel risks, such as AI-generated deepfakes influencing the outcome, did not materialise. However, in that election, there was unacceptable harassment and intimidation directed at candidates—particularly female candidates—and campaigners, especially online. It is clearly vital that everyone, regardless of their sex/gender or race, feels able to participate in public life. The Home Office is reviewing this activity through the defending democracy taskforce.

We need to better understand the trends, motivations and drivers that cause people to harass and intimidate their elected representatives. That includes identifying gaps and vulnerabilities and developing recommendations to strengthen legislative responses, as well as a clear delineation of online versus in-person activity and its impact. That work will be reported to the taskforce, and my Department has contributed to these efforts to tackle online harms and improve online environments. While the primary responsibility for harmful social media content rests with the individuals and groups who create and post it, social media platforms have a responsibility to keep users safe.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Sorcha Eastwood to quickly wind up.

Northern Gaza

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I will try to get everybody in, but I am aiming to finish this urgent question at about 2 o’clock and a lot of Members are on their feet. You would really help each other if you made your questions and answers succinct.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Reportedly, six babies have so far frozen to death in Gaza, largely as a result of a denial of fuel, heating, shelter and medical care. People’s tents are being flooded in the winter rains, diseases are spreading, aid access is virtually non-existent and there is not one single operational hospital in northern Gaza, with healthcare staff continually being targeted. What are the UK Government doing to ensure that Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately stops such atrocities and allows proper aid access into Gaza, and that we finally get an end to the bloodshed in Palestine?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin]

Sanctions, arms sales, recognition of a Palestinian state—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. You do not get two bites of the cherry.

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member mentioned sanctions, and we put in place extensive sanctions at the end of last year. I will not comment on further sanctions—to do so might undermine their impact—but we keep these issues under close review. I have discussed the recognition of a Palestinian state and arms. I recognise the strength of feeling in the House, I recognise how desperately people in this Chamber and across the world want to see an urgent ceasefire in Gaza, and that is the zeal with which the Foreign Office ministerial team approach this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I am aware of the time, and I am aware of the number of Members who want to ask a question, so I will run things slightly longer, but I ask Members to keep their questions and answers as short as possible.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I listened to what the Minister said about the recognition of a viable Palestine, as opposed to the recognition of Palestine. As that could happen in a number of steps, will he take the first step in recognising the state of Palestine, before moving to a full viable Palestine, as he describes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is right to flag the more than 300 aid workers killed since 7 October. We have many former aid workers on the Government Benches; they perform a vital function for the provision of international humanitarian assistance. British nationals are among those killed since 7 October. Particularly close to my heart are the families of the British aid workers who were part of the World Central Kitchen convoy killed on 1 April. Most particularly in relation to the death of British nationals, but also in relation to all such incidents, we continue to press for a proper legal process in Israel to ensure that where aid workers are killed, there are proper investigations and full legal consequences where that is appropriate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Dr Scott Arthur—sorry, Brian Leishman.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Thank you very much for that upgrade, Madam Deputy Speaker.

In my opinion, there is no grey area to be had here: to sell arms is to be complicit. How can the Government realistically and honestly say that Britain is doing everything it can for a ceasefire and for peace when we continue to sell any arms to Israel?

Pro-democracy Campaigners: Arrests

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

I will, of course. Would my right hon. Friend write to me with the exact details and his most recent update? I have had the privilege of meeting trade union colleagues from Hong Kong, Taiwan and a number of other areas that are very exposed to the People’s Republic of China and some of the tactics we have seen there. I have been pleased that there has been great collaboration across not only the trade union movement here in the UK, but defenders of human rights—be they environmental, relating to freedom of religion or belief or across the great range of freedoms that we enjoy here, and which we want other countries to share, too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The extraterritorial arrest warrants issued against Hong Kong pro-democracy activists are disgraceful. We must be clear: Hong Kong democracy campaigners such as Carmen Lau, a former district councillor in Hong Kong, are welcome and free to express their views here in the UK. This attempt by Beijing to interfere in our democracy is unacceptable. The previous Government did not do enough to counter this interference, and we urge this Government to go further than words with actions. Will the Minister meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) and his constituent Carmen Lau to assure her of the Government’s support? Will the Government clarify that it is illegal to bounty hunt in the UK, and that anyone who does so can expect to be prosecuted? Will she use our Magnitsky sanctions regime against those in Hong Kong and Beijing responsible for the unacceptable targeting of Hong Kong pro-democracy activists? Finally, in the light of the continued detention of Jimmy Lai and these warrants, will the Government reconsider the Chancellor’s planned trip to Beijing?

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

First, I declare my interest as a member of the UK CPA executive.

It has been great to see the swift progress this Bill has made thus far and the cross-party support it has received. It is a short but important Bill that defines the status of the CPA and the ICRC. This is the third time it has been brought before the House, and I am sure, given the cross-party support it has already received, it will pass Third Reading smoothly.

The Bill is essential in providing the CPA and the ICRC with the required protections to operate as trusted partners of the UK and continue work in promoting democracy and meeting humanitarian needs. The UK continues proudly to reaffirm the vital role of the Commonwealth family in tackling the issues we face in an ever more uncertain world. I recently met the high commissioners of a few Commonwealth countries, including Zambia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, and Cyprus, who truly value their relationship with the UK. We must continue to foster good relations across the Commonwealth, and we can do so only if leaders and parliamentarians have the opportunity to work together.

I fully support the proposals for elevating the CPA and the ICRC status within the UK to stand alongside their vital international partners. This Bill will allow the CPA to operate as an international organisation headquartered in London rather than within limited scope as a UK charity. The CPA does incredible work in engaging parliamentarians across the Commonwealth, fully embodying its mission in promoting the advancement of parliamentary democracy. The threat to democracy and our liberal values has never been greater since the second world war, so this mission is more important than ever. The ability to engage openly with parliamentarians globally, particularly in fragile and conflict-ridden regions, and to exchange knowledge, good practice and an understanding of good democratic governance could make a world of difference.

Globally, the CPA operates in over 180 legislatures in 60 nations and encompasses over 18,500 parliamentarians. The cross-parliamentary engagement conferences and the forums allow for fruitful discussion on common values and aspirations. Importantly, this Bill will provide parliamentarians with the credibility and authority to operate fully on the international stage. The status of the CPA as an international organisation will facilitate an active role in global diplomacy in addressing the challenges of our time. Expanding its organisational scope will also bring the ability to sign international conventions and pursue political purposes such as denouncing the political persecution of parliamentarians in several countries. Granting the necessary privileges and legal immunities to the CPA places it on an equal footing with other international organisations, thus ensuring its global influence in promoting parliamentary democracy and good governance.

Crucially, the Bill seeks to elevate the status of the ICRC. As an independent humanitarian organisation, the ICRC has a unique mandate to protect victims of armed conflicts, enshrined in the Geneva conventions of 1949. This Bill will provide the necessary mechanisms to enhance the work of the ICRC in a way befitting its mandate in international humanitarian law. Granting the ICRC certain immunities and privileges will bring the UK into line with over 110 states and alleviate many operational challenges under its current status.

The ICRC’s efforts to provide humanitarian assistance and rebuild communities need to be protected. It is important to recognise that the ICRC works in many dangerous zones around the world, and that allowing the legal protection of information and testimonies will in turn protect its workers and benefit the people it is helping. Its work in Gaza, Sudan, Congo, Ukraine and in over 90 countries must be protected and must maintain its principles of neutrality, independence and confidentiality.

This Bill provides a critical step in ensuring that both the CPA and the ICRC, through their new status as international organisations, are entrusted by the Government to operate fully within the UK. Both organisations will continue to be valued partners in the UK’s central role in global diplomacy, through the promotion of good governance, democracy and the Commonwealth, and in addressing global humanitarian needs.

I hope the whole House will support the Bill on Third Reading.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Detained British Nationals Abroad

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this Backbench Business debate on detained British nationals abroad. I commend the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing it, and for his relentless campaigning on the important cause of arbitrarily detained British nationals at risk of human rights abuse abroad. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for supporting his application.

This House should be concerned by the number of British nationals detained abroad and at risk. I wish to raise in particular the plight of my constituent from West Dunbartonshire, Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been detained in India for over seven years. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their contributions to the debate on his behalf. Jagtar is a British citizen from Dunbarton. A campaigner himself on human rights abuses in India, he was abducted and detained in November 2017. After his arrest, he was brutally tortured, and now faces, some seven years later, nine cases against him based on evidence obtained by false confession. Countless applications for his bail have been refused. After all these years, Jagtar remains not just in prison but in solitary confinement. His suffering is unimaginable, and his daily existence almost intolerable.

I am sure that this House will be concerned about Jagtar’s mental and physical wellbeing after being confined in such conditions, which is why the support that the British Government provide to their nationals in harrowing conditions, such as those that my constituent endures, is vital. Consular access and assistance is very often the only link between the individual and the outside world. That has proved to be the case for my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal. Consular access should have a legal framework, and not just be a discretionary offering. Changing the culture of the FCDO and providing families with certainty about what support their loved ones will receive as a matter of right is a necessity. We must introduce it. As far as my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal is concerned, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West stated, the UN working group on arbitrary detention concluded over two and a half years ago in May 2022 that, under international law, Jagtar’s detention is arbitrary. Yet here we are, 2,589 days later. He remains in prison—unconvicted and in solitary confinement.

To add to that misery, Jagtar and his family must cope with the very real fear that he is at serious risk of a death sentence. At least two of the charges against Jagtar carry the death penalty. Former Governments’ responses have been inadequate, and successive UK Foreign Secretaries have failed to seek Jagtar’s release and repatriation to the UK. That is simply unacceptable and not good enough. The new Government and Foreign Secretary now have the opportunity to uphold the principled position that we took in opposition. I am encouraged by the progress and support that I have received from the Foreign Office, and the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers, who have provided me with regular updates and reports. I have also received assurances in this House, including from the Prime Minister, that Jagtar’s case was raised directly with the Indian Government and Prime Minister Modi. I am encouraged that the Government are seeking Jagtar’s immediate release.

Last month, around the time of seven-year anniversary of Jagtar’s detention, the Foreign Secretary met with me and my constituent Gurpreet Singh Johal, the brother of Jagtar, at the Foreign Office. The Foreign Secretary was extremely generous with his time. In fact, Jagtar’s brother commented in the media immediately after our meeting that he has met with five Foreign Secretaries and this is the first Foreign Secretary whom he felt had actually listened to him. I fully appreciate that other British nationals in similar circumstances across the world require a similar level of active support, and it should be consistent for all. That is why I commend the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green for securing today’s debate. I thank Reprieve for its outstanding assistance for my constituent, and its guidance to me since I was elected to this House in July. I call on the Indian Government to immediately release Jagtar Singh Johal, and ask that the FCDO continues to escalate its diplomatic representations with its relevant counterparts to establish Jagtar’s release and his immediate return home to my constituency of West Dunbartonshire and his family in Dunbarton. Help bring him home now.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for leading today’s important debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for supporting it. When this House considers grave matters of war and armed conflict, Ministers often intone that the first duty of the state is the protection of its citizens, and they are right. That obligation to protect the physical security of its citizens does not stop at the borders of our nation. The British passport that permits us to travel to other countries contains a message from the Foreign Secretary in the name of His Majesty that requires others

“to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.”

Yet today, Members have highlighted the cases of those to whom that request has not been granted. The Liberal Democrats stand with all British nationals who have been arbitrarily detained overseas, and with their families. We share the anger cited by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) at their detention. Our party is a steadfast supporter of the rule of law, and salutes the many brave individuals and campaigning organisations that fight tirelessly for democracy, political freedoms, freedom of expression and human rights in those countries where the regime shows no respect for those values. That is why, at the last election, our manifesto contained a commitment to enshrine in law a right for British nationals, including dual nationals, who have been politically detained or face other human rights violations abroad, to access UK consular services. We would be delighted if the Government took up that proposal, so will the Minister advise us when they will enact such a commitment?

I wish to build on the references made to a few cases by right hon. and hon. Members. Like the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara), it was my privilege to meet the family of Alaa Abd el-Fattah last week. They described the despair that Alaa feels now that his detention has extended beyond the five-year sentence that he was handed in his sham trial. His remarkable mother, Laila Soueif, is now on the 67th day of her hunger strike to protest that Alaa has not been freed. She described to me the needs of her young grandson, Alaa’s son, Khaled, who lives in Brighton. It clearly breaks Laila’s heart that he has not seen his father for so long. I am sure that the whole House understands the anguish that Alaa’s family feel about his continued detention.

I know that Ministers have voiced the need for action in Alaa’s case. As the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) mentioned, in opposition, the Foreign Secretary said in 2022 that there should be “serious diplomatic consequences” for Egypt if Alaa was not released. He also said that the UK’s £4 billion trade partnership with Egypt afforded the UK “tremendous leverage”. Last week, Laila and Alaa’s sisters met with the Foreign Secretary. They protested that, despite those statements in opposition, the UK-Egyptian diplomatic relationship is unchanged, and UK officials continue to negotiate further bilateral investment and trade deals with Egypt. On Saturday, Laila visited Alaa in prison. She updated him on her meeting with the Foreign Secretary, and Alaa said this to his mother:

“I had hope in David Lammy but I just can’t believe nothing is happening. If he was serious and had taken the steps he promised while in Opposition I would have been free today—but instead they just ignored my release date because there was zero pressure. Now I think either I will die in here, or if my mother dies, I will hold him to account.”

Three weeks ago, I met Sebastien Lai and the legal team supporting his father Jimmy Lai. As hon. and right hon. Members have set out, Jimmy is clearly a victim of politically motivated imprisonment. His staunch support of democracy and freedom of speech in Hong Kong is remarkable, yet the Chinese authorities have detained him for four years without trial, holding him in solitary confinement under the national security law. They have denied him access to consular support, placed him at health risk as a 76-year-old with a chronic condition, and denied him his right to practise religion. Last month, they restarted his trial after an 11-month hiatus. Sebastien is deeply worried that his father will die in prison.

The House also heard today from the hon. Members for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) about the detention of Jagtar Singh Johal in 2017. As they said, the findings of the UN working group on arbitrary detention in May 2022 upheld the views of his family that he had been detained without any legal basis and that his rights had been gravely violated.

Yesterday I met representatives of Amnesty International who wanted to be sure that the House would hear of the detention without trial of British citizen Mehran Raoof in Iran in October 2020. Mehran is one of many British nationals detained in Iran. In other cases, the families of those detained have asked that their relatives are not named. That is not a surprise given the reputation of the Iranian state for appalling human rights abuses in Iran and for extraterritorial threats to Iranians living overseas, including here in the UK. Tonight Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe will give the 2024 Orwell lecture. The example of her imprisonment and detention, of the courage of her family and of the actions and inaction of successive Ministers should be a sobering reminder of what Iran is prepared to do to British nationals, whom it considers pawns in hostage diplomacy.

I am a newcomer to the House, but I know many Members who spoke today have been long-standing advocates in this place of the rights of those prisoners, and I pay tribute to them for their steadfast campaigning. Sadly, despite the continuous efforts of those parliamentarians, neither the previous Conservative Government nor this new Labour Government have succeeded in advancing the cases of those I have mentioned. Alaa has now spent over five years in continuous detention. Jimmy has now spent nearly four years in solitary confinement. Jagtar was arrested over seven years ago. Mehran was imprisoned over four years ago. The family and friends of detainees are calling on the Government to do more, and they are right to ask why more is not being done.

The Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary may be raising the cases of those detainees, but the truth is that the countries holding them do not appear to be listening. I do appreciate the Government’s dilemma—after the previous Conservative Government did so much to erode the UK’s standing in the world, this Government have a weak starting point. I therefore understand the temptation to soft-pedal on awkward issues, but, as Members have said, that is the wrong strategy. I agree with the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that we need a more self-confident and consistent strategy to guide the Government’s approach when British nationals are arbitrarily detained overseas.

Let me set out five further steps that the Government can and should take. First, the Government should call for the immediate release of any detained British national or dual national who is arbitrarily detained. Secondly, the Government should insist on consular access to any British national and that UK officials attend trials. Thirdly, the Government should commit to raising the case in every ministerial interaction with that Government as part of a joined-up approach that does not treat human rights as one silo in the bilateral relationship. Fourthly, the Government should name the consequences of ignoring their requests for action and, following a suitable period to allow the detaining Government to act, should enforce those consequences against Governments and individuals, as Members have raised. Fifthly, the Government should implement the recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Committee and appoint an envoy or director for arbitrary detention, who would have the role of pursuing those cases and providing regular updates to the families of detainees on the steps the Government are taking to secure their release.

As the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said, it is not enough for ambassadors and Ministers to increase the adjectives of disappointment as each month passes and as each polite request is ignored. Will the Minister commit today to taking those steps in every case of arbitrary detention? Diplomacy rests upon both parties having a clear understanding of the interests and needs of the other. As the Prime Minister said after meeting President Xi recently and briefly raising Jimmy Lai’s case, the UK should challenge China while being a “pragmatic and predictable partner”.

To take two specific examples, will the Government indicate to the Chinese Government that the Chancellor’s proposed trade and investment visit to Beijing will not go ahead until Jimmy Lai is released? Will the Government tell the Egyptian Government that unless consular access is granted to Alaa Abd el-Fattah, the FCDO’s travel advice will be altered to warn UK travellers to Egypt that it does not always recognise British nationals and therefore consular support cannot be guaranteed?

To travel under the protection of a UK passport must have meaning. It cannot be a polite request. Instead, the Government must put in place a strategy that restores what every passport states: that countries are required to assure UK citizens of free passage and necessary protection.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important and impactful debate. He speaks with such knowledge on the matter. I thank all other hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions.

Supporting British nationals abroad should rightly be a priority for the FCDO. Looking after the welfare of detainees in particular is a cornerstone of the excellent work done by our consular teams here and overseas. It is crucial that Ministers back our Foreign Office staff, detainees and families by providing leadership at the highest level and supporting them wherever possible. I witnessed some of that during my time as a Foreign Office Minister and, like many Members, I experienced it at a constituency level, seeing how the FCDO has helped with the return of a number of consular cases.

In our last full year in government in 2023, the consular team at the Foreign Office supported 21,000 British nationals around the world, including victims of crime and those who had been detained or hospitalised. We are clear that our citizens abroad must get access to the help they need when they need it.

I note that the Foreign Secretary confirmed last week that he hopes to announce an envoy who will deal with more complex detention cases. I gently say to the Government and the Minister that this must not become an excuse for outsourcing something that is the responsibility of Ministers. Detained British nationals will rightly expect Ministers to grip those issues and provide the political leadership that they and their families deserve. The Government also promised to introduce a new right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations, which, disappointingly, was not forthcoming in the King’s Speech. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the Government’s plans to bring forward that commitment.

There are a number of high-profile consular cases, some of which we have heard about today, that parliamentarians rightly continue to take a keen interest in seeing resolved. They include, among others, the cases of Jagtar Singh Johal, Alaa Abd el-Fattah, Ryan Cornelius and Jimmy Lai. We raised our concerns about Jagtar Singh Johal’s case, including his allegations of torture, with the Government of India on over 110 occasions. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton personally met Mr Johal’s brother in Glasgow. We constantly raised Alaa Abd el-Fattah’s case with the highest levels of the Egyptian Government and pressed hard for urgent consular access. We remain deeply concerned about his case and are absolutely clear that he needs to be released.

When in government, we also regularly raised consular matters with the United Arab Emirates authorities, including Ryan Cornelius’s case, at an official and ministerial level, and consular staff were in regular contact with Mr Cornelius and his family to provide him with ongoing support.

We called strongly for the release of Jimmy Lai, for an end to his politically motivated trial, and for consular access. We raised that consistently at the very highest levels, and pressed for the repeal of Hong Kong’s national security legislation. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), recently met Mr Lai’s son, Sebastien. We will continue to call for Mr Lai’s release. In the light of the deep concern shared across the House, some of which we have heard today, I would be grateful if the Minister provided an update on the Government’s work with international counterparts to progress those cases, and on his recent engagement with those individuals’ families.

In respect of Jimmy Lai’s case in particular, I return to a theme that I have raised from the Dispatch Box before: the Government’s pursuit of closer relations with Beijing. There is no shying away from the fact that the charge laid against Mr Lai arose because of the national security law that China introduced in Hong Kong. When he was Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was unequivocal that that law is a clear breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, and we continue to call for its repeal. The Foreign Secretary has said that there are disagreements between his Government and the Chinese on that matter, so I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the Government will articulate those differences in opinion loud and clear by making an explicit call for that law to be repealed. The Foreign Secretary wants to avoid surprises with Beijing, but we cannot afford for any reset of relations to be all give and no take just for the sake of avoiding difficult conversations.

More broadly, we must be clear-eyed that the autocratic world uses dual-nationals as pawns to achieve its objectives and obtain leverage. Indeed, we have seen a disturbing pattern of British nationals being imprisoned by autocracies in recent years. We saw that in Russia with the appalling treatment of Vladimir Kara-Murza, and in Iran with the callous and cowardly execution of Alireza Akbari. Does the Minister have a strategy for countering that pattern of cynical exploitation of British nationals?

I put on record our thanks to the consular teams in the UK, and in British embassies, high commissions and consulates around the world, for the work that they undertake around the clock, often in extremely difficult circumstances, to support thousands of British nationals every year. Many cases may not be as high profile as those that I and other right hon. and hon. Members have set out, but they are all equally important when it comes to safeguarding our interests and looking after our citizens. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined how he is backing our consular teams to ensure that they are properly resourced and can keep up their excellent work. We have a duty to British nationals at home and abroad, especially those who are denied access to vital support. It is right that we give consular services our full backing in delivering that support. To support that work, and to ensure that the UK upholds its duties to its citizens, the Government must provide political leadership by continuing to raise cases at the highest levels.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Minister.

Pakistan: Freedom of Religion

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for organising this important debate. From the many examples he has given from his long time spent fighting for religious freedom in Pakistan and for Christians around the world, I can see that this is something he cares deeply about, and it is important that we are discussing it today.

Like the Minister, I spent some time working in Pakistan with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I spent three years working in Islamabad and Lahore from 2019 to 2021. I spent a lot of that time traveling around Punjab—I had responsibility for that province within the FCDO—and a lot of the examples that the hon. Member for Strangford gave are really familiar. I will talk about some of those examples in a moment, but before I do so, I want to highlight some of the other aspects of Pakistan that I saw there, including some of the more positive ones, which may be examples of how religious minorities should be treated that we can give when we are talking to Pakistan in the future.

In my time travelling throughout Punjab, I got to see many religious sites. Travelling through the old city of Lahore, there is the very impressive Badshahi Masjid. You can travel down to Derawar in Bahawalpur and see a fantastic fort there; there is the Rukn-e-Alam shrine in Multan, as well as the gurdwara at Nankana Sahib, and of course there is Lahore cathedral. I mention all those sites not because I want to give people a tour of Pakistan, or indeed to promote its tourism industry—although that definitely should be encouraged—but to highlight that all those magnificent buildings are from different religions. Pakistan has a proud history of various minorities throughout the ages, from the Buddhists of the Gandhara civilisation to Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims of various sects, Ahmadis and Christians. There are parts of the country that recognise that history. Spending time with each of those groups was a real privilege.

Of course, this is a debate on freedom of religion and belief, and while there are huge concerns about the treatment of minorities in Pakistan, I wanted to give one positive example of something that has happened in recent years. Towards the end of my time in Pakistan, I had the opportunity to visit the Kartarpur corridor, on the border between Pakistan and India. It is a site built on the location that was used by Guru Nanak when he first established the Sikh community in the 16th century. For a long time, it was divided between India and Pakistan, but in 2019 Narendra Modi and Imran Khan allowed access for the community to cross between their two countries. When I visited in 2020, I met pilgrims from India who had come to Pakistan to meet relatives in the Sikh community whom they had not seen since partition nearly 80 years before. The joy on the faces of those people, who were enabled to do that by the promises made by the Pakistani Government, showed that it is possible for the Government to be more positive toward some religious minorities.

In the three years I was based in Punjab, there were numerous cases of brutal attacks on religious minorities, some of which the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned. I will give three more examples from the time I was there. In April 2021, there was a mob attack in Faisalabad on Mariam Lal and Newsh Arooj, two Christian nurses who had been asked to clean up lockers in the hospital in which they were working. They were set on by a mob after accusations of blasphemy, and they were later arrested by the police and held in prison for some time. They have now been released, fortunately. In December 2021, there was the lynching of Priyantha Kumara in Sialkot. Priyantha was a Buddhist from Sri Lanka who was running a factory as the general manager. He was lynched by an angry mob after accusations of blasphemy while the police stood by and were unable to intervene. In August 2022, there was the stabbing of Naseer Ahmed, a 62-year-old Ahmadi grandfather, who refused to chant slogans in support of Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan. For that crime, he was murdered in the streets by an angry Pakistani man.

I raise those three incidents not because they are extraordinary, but because they felt routine. On a weekly basis when I was there, I would hear of bad examples from the Christian community, the Ahmadi community and others about the brutal violence and humiliations to which they were subjected. Sumera Shafique, a friend of mine who works for the Christian Lawyers Association of Pakistan, would call me regularly to update me about the false conversions she was working on, particularly in the south of Punjab.

Many people from the Ahmadiyya community, who would obviously prefer to be anonymous at the moment, regularly raise with me the victimisation they are facing, with their mosques being destroyed and their schools being closed down. As we heard from other Members, schools have also been nationalised by the Government. There has even been the introduction of a new marriage law meaning that an Ahmadiyya Muslim in Pakistan must renounce their faith to get married. The level of discrimination is quite outrageous.

I am lucky to have a significant Ahmadiyya community in my own constituency, with the Baitul Ghafoor mosque on Long Lane in Halesowen. It holds a number of inter- faith events, and I have been to many of them. I have been pleased to see the welcome that members provide to many people from different religious backgrounds. The contrast with the way the Ahmadiyya community is treated in Pakistan is striking.

When I was in Lahore, I had many discussions with the Human Rights Ministers of Punjab, Khalil Tahir Sandhu and Ramesh Singh, whom I still count as friends. I know they face a very difficult situation, and it is very challenging to work within the system to improve the conditions of religious minorities. Many people in Pakistan and in the Government are trying to do that, but I would of course encourage them to do more.

Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford again for organising this debate on a subject that I think we should be talking about more. I know it is an extremely difficult subject for the FCDO to work on, and I understand the limitations we are working under, but I ask the Minister to continue to raise the deteriorating situation that religious minorities have faced in recent years with our counterparts in Pakistan. I also ask him to commit to include freedom of religion or belief in the discussions about the future co-operation and trade agreements that we are having with Pakistan, and to use every opportunity across Government to hold discussions to push that forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on bringing forward this debate and allowing us to discuss this incredibly important issue in this House.

On 25 November 1981, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed resolution 36/55, which said:

“Discrimination between human beings on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and shall be condemned as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

Nearly half a century has passed since those words were written, and they came just seven years after the passage of the second amendment to the constitution of Pakistan, which declared that Ahmadi Muslims were

“not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or the law.”

My speech will concentrate on the Ahmadi community, but that should not diminish the persecution and discrimination suffered by other communities, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members.

Many decades on, we still find ourselves grappling with the critical injustice, prejudice and persecution that that amendment enshrined in law and enabled. That is what the current legal framework in Pakistan has done. It has enabled not just legal exclusion and prosecution, but ongoing hate speech and violent persecution. Extremist clerics in Pakistan have called for Ahmadi Muslims to be hung or beheaded, for their women to be murdered to prevent more Ahmadi Muslims from being born, and even for the Government of Pakistan to understand that if they do not act, the people will take matters into their own hands and kill Ahmadi Muslims themselves. If anyone has any lingering doubt about whether that awful rhetoric extends only to calls for violence within Pakistan’s borders, I refer them to one rally this year where the following was said:

“We have to strangle each and every Ahmadi…You have no idea how powerful this slogan is! You will raise it here, an Ahmadi will die in Great Britain.”

That abhorrent rhetoric has no place in a democratic republic such as Pakistan, and I know from conversations with many of my constituents, as well as Ahmadi Muslims across London, that it absolutely terrifies Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan and here in the UK.

We too often forget that rhetoric has consequences, and violent rhetoric becomes violence as surely as night becomes day. Sure enough, violent hate crimes across Pakistan and around the world against Ahmadi Muslims are at shocking levels. This year, four Ahmadi Muslims were killed in a targeted manner. Tahir Iqbal, president of a local Ahmadi Muslim community, was shot dead by two motorcyclists. Zaka ur Rehman, a dentist, was killed in his own clinic by two gunmen. In both cases, no perpetrators have been identified and brought to justice. In Sadullahpur, two Ahmadi Muslims, Ghulam Sarwar and Rahat Ahmad Bajwa, were murdered in separate incidents on the same day. The alleged perpetrator, a 16-year-old student of a madrassah, confessed to the killings, citing religious reasons—16 years old. I invite hon. Members to recall the poisonous rhetoric that I have just outlined, and to which that young man must have been exposed in order to carry out such a heinous act.

It seems that violence against Ahmadi Muslims is rarely investigated, and in many cases is seemingly encouraged or enabled by local officials and policemen in Pakistan. In June, 30 Ahmadi Muslims were arrested for the crime of celebrating Eid. Ahmadi homes were attacked, an Ahmadi mosque was ransacked, and the police stood by and did nothing. Earlier this year in January, it is alleged that local police in the Punjab region, acting under instructions from a local official, took part themselves in another disconcertingly common and awful act of hatred: the desecration of tombs in an Ahmadi Muslim graveyard. Desecration is a particularly cowardly and heinous act, and serves only to underscore the severity of the situation facing Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan.

Freedom of worship is inextricably linked with freedom of expression and speech, and as a Liberal I will always place the greatest currency on that most cherished of virtues.

But as all liberal societies have found, freedom of speech cannot extend to freedom of hate speech or the freedom to incite violence and hatred, and the Pakistani Government ought to be reminded of that fact in our bilateral engagements. Nobody should have to live like that, and to face hatred, threats, violence and death just for worshipping their own religion in a peaceful manner in a democratic country. It goes against every principle we hold dear in the community of international law, and against our every principle as an open, democratic, tolerant nation ourselves, not least as a nation that is bound to Pakistan by a common history, a common language and a track record of collaboration on tackling extremism in the region. We must be a critical partner of Pakistan. I call on the Government to respond to the concerns raised in the House today and to please come forward with reassurances that, at every single opportunity, the plight of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan will be raised with the Government of that country. Our conscience calls on us not to turn a blind eye.

Ahmadi Muslims, like members of all faiths, deserve to worship free from intimidation and discrimination. The Liberal Democrats have long been in favour of a rigorous, values-based foreign policy that puts our money where our mouth is. We cannot just talk a good game on protecting minorities around the world and standing up for the fundamental freedoms outlined in the declaration of human rights; we must use our leverage with Governments such as that in Pakistan to encourage them to take serious and concrete steps towards making it a reality. This should be an issue that unites us across the House—I am encouraged to hear that it does—and one that reminds us not just of our obligations under international law but our moral duty to those facing oppression everywhere.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.