Oral Answers to Questions
Lyn Brown Excerpts(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
As we know, and as has been said, right now an offensive is under way to capture El Fasher, the last remaining city in Darfur outside Rapid Support Forces control. The risk of massacres and rapes targeted at non-Arab communities is imminent, and I fear that it will be simply appalling in scale. All arms supplies to the warring sides must stop, and we thank our tireless diplomats, alongside African Security Council colleagues, for Friday’s statement at the UN, but what mechanisms are the Government using, with our partners, every single day to build pressure for an immediate ceasefire and a sustainable peace?
Sudan: Government Response
Lyn Brown Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Deputy Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the crisis in Sudan.
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question.
Britain is pursuing all diplomatic avenues to press the warring parties into a permanent ceasefire, allow unrestricted humanitarian access, protect civilians, and commit to a sustained and meaningful peace process. I visited eastern Chad last month, where I met with refugees who had lost everything and were fleeing conflict and hunger. I was greatly moved by what I saw, and reaffirmed Britain’s steadfast commitment to the people of Sudan. Some 88% of those crossing the border were women and children.
On Monday, to mark one year of brutal conflict in Sudan, Britain announced its third raft of sanctions, targeting two entities linked to the Rapid Support Forces and one entity linked to the Sudanese armed forces. On the same day, my noble Friend Lord Benyon represented the UK at the Paris humanitarian pledging conference for Sudan and its neighbours. On behalf of the UK, he pledged £89 million, a near-doubling of UK overseas development aid for Sudan from the previous year. He delivered a strong message with international partners, which—along with Britain’s sanctions—sends a clear signal to the warring parties that they must stop fighting and meaningfully engage in the peace process.
We continue to lead at the United Nations Security Council, where we hold the pen on Sudan. On 8 March, the UN Security Council adopted a UK-drafted Ramadan ceasefire resolution calling for immediate cessation of hostilities. On 20 March, we warned that obstruction of humanitarian access by the SAF and RSF is resulting in the starvation of the Sudanese people. Over the past year, Britain has provided £42.6 million in humanitarian aid to support people in Sudan, including £12.2 million to UNICEF for nutrition activities and approximately £23 million to the Sudan Humanitarian Fund for multi-sector response, including a high proportion of food security interventions.
Britain has also helped those fleeing to neighbouring countries: last year, we provided £7.75 million to support new and existing Sudanese refugees in South Sudan, and £15 million to Chad. We continue to advocate for a return to a civilian-led Government, and we urge all Sudanese stakeholders to engage in an inclusive dialogue that will deliver the peace and stability that the Sudanese people deserve.
Ms Brown
I am grateful for that answer.
The sheer horror unleashed by the generals’ war in Sudan is appalling to recount. We are approaching 9 million people forcibly displaced, with evidence of systematic sexual violence and heinous mass atrocities in Darfur and elsewhere. Some 3.5 million Sudanese children under the age of five are acutely malnourished, and massive famine is now seen as almost inevitable. Some models project up to a million deaths. As the UN Secretary-General said, this is
“a war…on the Sudanese people”,
and it must end with an immediate ceasefire.
I strongly welcome the sanctions from last week and the additional humanitarian funding, but is there going to be a dedicated high-level Sudan envoy, and what conversations are Ministers having with those who continue to fund and enable this war, because greater co-ordination has to be the priority? All states must recognise the truly disastrous consequences if Sudan collapses not just for the Sudanese people, but for the entire region.
But there is hope, because through all the horror and the destruction, despite the blocks on humanitarian access, the Sudanese people are still standing together in their own communities. The resistance committees and the emergency rooms are sometimes the sole source of relief, as famine spreads and medical access runs out for the sick and injured, and they are the undaunted spirit and hope of a Sudan free from the generals and their catastrophic war. How can we correct the mistakes of the past and back Sudanese civilians directly?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the hon. Lady very much for the eloquent way in which she has outlined the position in Sudan, and she is absolutely right. On the subject of the Sudan envoy, let me assure her that there is a very strong and very experienced envoy who covers the horn of Africa, and she focuses particularly on Sudan. The hon. Lady eloquently set out the wider effects of Sudan continuing on this path in the region, and I agree with her, and she also made clear the benefits that the emergency rooms, sometimes the only source of relief, are providing.
The hon. Lady asks about the mistakes that have been made in the past in respect of civilian rule. Britain has called—I think from across all parts of this House—for a ceasefire so that the generals take their troops back to barracks and the political space has a chance to advance. She will know that Abdalla Hamdok and Taqaddum, the civil society political grouping, have been working together, supported by Britain, in a conference in Addis Ababa and elsewhere. We are very committed to trying to work with them, so that there is one sensible but broad political offer for Sudan, as and when the chance of a ceasefire and the political track re-engaging takes place.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lyn Brown Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Next month is the anniversary of a full year of unmitigated horror in Sudan. On Friday, the Security Council called for an immediate Ramadan ceasefire, and I know that our excellent diplomats and the Minister were pivotal in that resolution. The African Union, the Arab League and Members across this House echo that call, but the violence has not stopped. If the warring parties continue to refuse to listen, how can the Government work with partners to step up the pressure?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is quite right to raise the appalling position in Sudan, which to some extent has been masked by other terrible events in the world. She will be pleased to hear that, thanks to British leadership at the United Nations, a new Security Council resolution was passed, I believe, last Friday. We are seeking to bring together all the different parties to try to make progress, so that the next round of talks, possibly in Jeddah, will be more successful than the last. Britain condemns any arming of either party inside Sudan. We are seeking also, through the work of our diplomatic mission in Khartoum, currently based in Addis, to help build civil society so that a political track can emerge.
Freedom of Religion and Belief in Nigeria
Lyn Brown Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate. He is, as ever, a devoted campaigner for freedom of religion or belief around the world, and I sincerely thank him for that. I am grateful to him for recognising the complexities of the situation, including the marginalisation of Fulani communities, the role of climate change and the need to tackle the flow of weapons. We need to collectively consider all those issues. I also agree that our influence rightly has limits, but I believe that there is more we can do within our partnership with Nigeria, and I will address that in my speech.
As we know, Nigeria is a country of rich diversity, with more than 500 languages, over 300 ethnic groups and a massive range of different churches and branches of Islam. Our connection with Nigeria benefits enormously from our diaspora communities, which, as we know, include British Nigerians of all faiths and backgrounds. It is right to say that at the beginning of my speech, because it provides the context for where we want to go. However, against that background of co-existence and flourishing diversity, there have been many appalling violations of freedom of religion and belief. They include attacks on Christian communities, priests and churches. We must continue to remember the utterly horrifying attack on St Francis Xavier Church in Ondo state two years back, when 41 innocent worshippers were murdered during the Pentecost mass. We continue to stand with the survivors and with that devastated community. I ask the Minister how the Government are engaging with the Nigerian authorities to help ensure justice for that attack, because it must not be forgotten.
The hon. Member rightly highlighted the terrible killings in Plateau state in December. Amnesty International Nigeria reports that over 140 people were killed across 20 villages in just 48 hours. That is truly appalling. Others reported that several churches were burned alongside many homes, and there is speculation that the attacks were a form of indiscriminate reprisal by local herders for cattle rustling and village burnings that had started the previous day. The scale of it is simply horrifying. Is the Minister aware of any progress following the Government’s engagement with the authorities on this issue? We should not rely on speculation. There is a genuine need for a full and impartial investigation of those attacks, and we must see action to prevent those horrors from being repeated, as they have been in recent years.
Fiona Bruce
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Is it not right that unless endeavours are made to bring to account those involved in such atrocities, impunity is fostered, and that means more attacks can occur?
Ms Brown
I agree with the hon. Lady, as I often do. It is about ensuring that there is no impunity for attacks of that nature. It only fosters, as she rightly says, impunity for future actions.
As we know, there is also a huge continuing threat from jihadist terrorist groups, such as Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province, and we must continue to support Nigeria in its fight against those groups. Terrible violence and insecurity in large parts of Nigeria continue to affect millions of Nigerian people of all faiths. I hope that we can agree here today that narratives about religious wars are not accurate, because I honestly worry that that kind of narrative risks making the situation even worse.
I would like to draw hon. Members’ attention to the perspective of Archbishop Ndagoso, of the Catholic archdiocese of Kaduna in north-west Nigeria. He said:
“In the northwest the farmers are mostly Muslims, and they also have conflicts with the Fulani. As you move to the middle belt, it is inhabited mostly by Christians, so there it will most likely be a Christian farm. Religion and ethnicity are very sensitive problems in Nigeria, they are always used for convenience, but primarily this conflict is not religious, I am absolutely sure.”
The archbishop went on to say that opportunists
“use these factors to their own advantage, but if you go to the root, you discover it is little or nothing to do with religion.”
The archbishop, like many in Nigeria, is absolutely focused on the desperate insecurity affecting his parishioners. In the same interview, he was understandably very critical of the Nigerian Government and of us in the west. He was, rightly, very clear about the many forms of legal and administrative discrimination that Christian organisations face in his state, and others in northern Nigeria. His is an expert perspective that we should consider.
In 2022, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project found that while, as we know, attacks on Christians had significantly increased, only 5% of the attacks on civilians were specifically targeting Christians based on the fact that they were Christians. However, I know that we in this Chamber will agree that even a 5% increase is far too great.
It is a simple fact that the extremist groups exploiting and victimising large areas of Nigeria kill and destroy the livelihoods of Christian and Muslim communities alike. We must call out targeted attacks against Christians, and we need a holistic approach to insecurity. We need to provide solidarity with all communities, because Nigerian communities of all faiths and ethnicities depend on the Nigerian state; and where there are failures, we need to support our Nigerian friends in addressing them.
When communities do not have access to state services, including access to justice that resolves and redresses grievances, it fuels vigilantes, bandits and revenge attacks. It creates a sense of abandonment and discrimination, which is fertile ground for the recruitment narratives of terrorists. When young people have no decent access to jobs, and families are without education for their children or food to keep them from going hungry, there is a push towards alternative economic models, such as crime. It is the same the world over, but in Nigeria, that might include kidnapping for ransom, livestock rustling, or, appallingly, even recruitment into the terrorist groups that continue to wreak such utter carnage on innocent communities.
I know that some colleagues may disagree, but many experts and international organisations are clear that climate change plays a role in this conflict. The African Union, the International Crisis Group, the World Bank and others believe that to be true. When grazing land becomes scarce, it drives herders to migrate. They, in turn, push into settled communities, and atrocities can result. We see similar stories happening right across the Sahel and beyond—from Mali to the Lake Chad basin, from South Sudan to north-west Kenya. Those conflicts are, sadly, nothing new, but they have become more and more intense.
Fiona Bruce
I do not think any of us deny that climate change is one of the causes of the sad situation that we are discussing, but one of the problems is that extremist groups are hijacking the issue and fuelling the violence. As we have said, they bring in arms and other materials to do that. Those groups have their own extremist agenda, and they are taking advantage of all those involved who are struggling, often at subsistence level, in Nigeria. The international community needs to address this issue with greater alertness and urgency.
Ms Brown
I agree. The impact of a changing climate is not a simple issue of cause and effect; it is about poverty and destitution.
I can understand the anxiety about states in Nigeria continuing to imprison people for exercising religious freedoms. We all know the case of Mubarak Bala—we have spoken about that in this place, with the same audience—but there are others imprisoned in Nigeria on blasphemy charges. We cannot just respond to insecurity and terrorism by calling out individual human rights abuses. We need to provide practical support to prevent further atrocities. Regardless of whether religious motivations have helped to cause an attack, I believe that we can absolutely support religious organisations to provide solutions.
I hope that the Minister will tell us much more today about how the Government are engaging with all communities of faith in Nigeria to support peace building; how we are encouraging interfaith work that creates trust and understanding; and how we are engaging with religious leaders to support their communities to adapt to more climate-resilient methods of agriculture and ways of living. How are we supporting the early warning systems and civil society networks that can help communities to de-escalate when a conflict becomes likely? How can we support the programmes of the federal Government or individual states that would aid that agenda? Are we offering support to the efforts of Nigeria and the Economic Community of West African States in tackling the spread of weapons, which make these conflicts so appallingly deadly?
I hope colleagues will forgive me if I finish on a much more positive note. In much of Nigeria, people of different faiths and none are living side by side in peace. That is utterly normal, and it simply goes without saying. Interfaith marriages are common. We should not lose sight of this. I worry that an image of Nigeria is emerging that is scarcely recognisable to many Nigerians, because it does not reflect the dynamism, the inter-mixing, the excitement, energy and opportunity of Nigeria today. I believe that to support protections for all Nigerians, including those of freedom of religion or belief, we need to engage with those opportunities, deepening our partnership with Nigeria for our mutual benefit.
Religious Persecution and the World Watch List
Lyn Brown Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I believe that this is the very first time I have served under your chairship, Ms Vaz; I am delighted to do so, and I am sure it will not be the last.
My thanks, as ever, go to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for securing the debate. She is a redoubtable, articulate and knowledgeable advocate for those who experience religious persecution, as is the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am always delighted to be asked to be on the Labour party Front Bench for one of the hon. Members’ debates.
I am also delighted to have the opportunity to address the important issue of religious persecution around the world. I know that each of us wants to see our foreign policy working hard to strengthen protections for freedom of belief. Given my role, I hope that I will be forgiven for focusing on Africa, although nearer to the end of my remarks I will mention a number of other areas of the world.
I want to talk about Nigeria, where, as we know, there is significant continuing violence across the country. Some of that violence, sadly, is religiously motivated, and none of us could possibly forget the utterly horrific attack on St Francis Xavier Catholic church in June 2022. As we know, both Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province continue to kill innocent people. In October last year, suspected jihadists killed 37 villagers in the Geidam area of Yobe state. Days later, on 5 November, an armed group attacked a Muslim celebration in the Musawa area of Katsina state, killing at least 20 people and abducting others. The following day, in Borno, Boko Haram combatants killed at least 15 farmers in the Mafa area.
We have to recognise that much of the violence in Nigeria is not religiously motivated and that all communities are affected. Even so, the impact of all the violence clearly worsens religious and ethnic tensions. For example, in Plateau state, intercommunal violence between farmers and herders continues and attacks on Christmas eve by suspected armed herders killed almost 200 people. While herders are mostly Fulani Muslims and farming communities are often non-Fulani Christians, I believe it is vital that we look at the root causes of the violence.
Climate change is eating away at arable land, making conflict over resources near-inevitable. To reduce religious tensions, which is something we all want, we need a holistic approach. We need to work to mitigate the economic and climate-linked harms that can so easily deepen divisions and spark conflagrations of intercommunal violence. There are actions that we can take within our partnership with the Government of Nigeria to support that holistic approach. While I am talking about Nigeria, we are all aware that Mubarak Bala, the president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, is still in prison. It has been almost two years since he was sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment for allegedly blasphemous Facebook posts. That is something that we should continually raise with our Nigerian partners.
However, there are also positive stories that I think we can learn from. Ahead of the 2023 general elections, Muslim leaders and traditional rulers in Nigeria’s Kaduna state joined worshippers at an evangelical church to show solidarity and commitment to co-existence and harmony. I know that all friends on both sides of the Chamber will agree that we do not hear enough about the steps that religious community leaders take to build peaceful co-existence. We need to look how we can help to support that work, because it is a way we can move forward together. Can the Minister tell me what steps are being taken to work with civil society organisations on this interfaith and intercommunal work that reduces tension and provides narratives against hate?
Another way we can support communities at risk of persecution is by pushing for accountability. With that in mind, I would like to talk about Sudan. As we know, appalling, widespread and apparently systematic atrocities have been taking place in Sudan. As I noted in a debate yesterday, the recent report of the UN panel of experts estimates that as many as 15,000 people were killed in the city of El Geneina alone. Specific evidence continues to emerge of targeted massacres and sexual violence against the Masalit people in El Geneina and elsewhere in Darfur on the basis of their ethnicity. The conflict in Sudan is extremely complex. It is not primarily about religion, but all Sudanese communities have been affected. There can be little doubt that the rapid escalation in violence and the proliferation of weapons to militias have created significant additional risks to religious minority communities.
Sadly, there has been relatively little coverage of the plight of Christians and other minority communities in Sudan during the present horrifying conflict. Just two weeks ago, on 12 January, yet another church was burned in Sudan, continuing the pattern that we discussed last February. Following the capture of Wad Madani by the Rapid Support Forces faction, the Gezira state evangelical church was set on fire. I understand that it was the largest church in the state and one of the oldest in Sudan as a whole. Thankfully, the building has been only partially destroyed. However, we have to recognise the pattern of abuses of Sudanese religious minorities by those with power who can act with impunity. It is clear that the pattern will continue unless we see peace, justice and accountable civilian government in Sudan.
Is the Minister confident that the Government have the capacity to identify and map those responsible for these targeted attacks? I genuinely believe that there is more that we can do to work towards justice and accountability. To give just one example, surely far more work is needed to stop the funnelling of gold out of Sudan. That gold fuels the atrocities. As I have mentioned the issue many times over recent months, I will leave it there for now, but I think it is something we have to look at. How is this conflict being funded?
Today’s debate is about persecution globally, so I am sorry not to be able to address as much of the world as I would like in my 10 minutes. Hon. Members have raised heartbreaking cases from many areas of the world where we know that diverse religious groups are targeted for persecution, including in China, as the hon. Member for Congleton mentioned, in North Korea, in Iran, in Pakistan, as the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, in Afghanistan and in Syria. However, I want to mention the plight of many minority communities, including Christians and Muslims, in India.
India is a country with a rich, diverse history, of which every Indian should rightly be proud. But last summer during a Hindu procession in the Nuh district of Haryana state, communal violence broke out. Authorities in India then retaliated against Muslim communities. Hundreds of properties owned by Muslims were demolished and scores of Muslim boys and men were detained. It is reported that Sarfu, a 65-year-old mechanic who had been running his small business from a tin shed for 30 years, came home to find his shed and all his tools reduced to scrap: imagine—struggling to make a living and working hard all your life, to have your work destroyed in a few minutes all because of your faith.
The targeting of minority groups can form part of a very disturbing pattern, which we know can only lead to spiralling misery and escalating violence. As we know, state action against identifiable groups often results in communities believing they can act with impunity and take whatever action against others that they individually see fit.
I want to end my contribution by speaking about the widespread and continuing persecution in Eritrea. The Eritrean Government continue to detain those who practise faiths not recognised by the state. One Pentecostal church leader died in detention last April following a year of imprisonment; I will not name him because of concerns about the risk of reprisals against his family, but I understand he was denied the burial chosen by his relatives. I cannot begin to imagine the pain that his family experienced as a result of that final insult.
Many others continue to languish in prison, and it is a source of deep frustration to many of us that there is so little that we can do to support them. Let’s face it: there are clear links between closed societies, poor governance and insecurity, and many forms of religious persecution. A key goal of our foreign and development policies must be to promote good governance, a free press and a strong civil society, but we have to recognise that, in reality, much of our development co-operation and wider partnerships also have a role to play.
We can support peace-building efforts more consistently if we partner with Governments and civil society organisations in a smart, joined-up and strategic way. The issue is far wider than sanctions and support for democracy. In supporting Governments to provide even the most basic services to their most marginalised communities, we can reduce the risk of religious persecution and extremism.
I welcome the fact that freedom of religion or belief was mentioned several times in the international development White Paper, but does the Minister think that enough is being done, as part of the UK’s atrocity prevention strategy, to address the root causes of religious tensions? Although our influence is limited, we have the power to support strong protections for freedom of religion or belief in partnership with our friends around the world. I know we all agree that it would be a terrible waste if we squandered that opportunity.
International Human Rights Abuses: UK Response
Lyn Brown Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria, and I must say to the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) that if his speech was a half-written one, it was a remarkably good one.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for securing this debate. Like many colleagues, she has rightly exposed the depths of the horrors being inflicted in our world today, which include the abuses of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, Hongkongers here in the UK having bounties put on their heads, and the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, where the people have lived for far too long in a limbo of injustice and insecurity.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of people around the world being persecuted for their faith, which I will address in tomorrow’s Westminster Hall debate on religious persecution, and I am keen to hear privately more details about the constituency case that she mentioned regarding Nigeria.
All these issues are worth so much more consideration than I can give them in 10 minutes. Consequently, if hon. Members will forgive me, I will focus on those suffering in Sudan and give them a voice, because the conflict there is not being given the attention that it rightly deserves.
Before I do so, however, I will talk about Gaza. What is happening in Gaza is an intolerable horror and a disgrace to humanity, and it must end. In Gaza, 85% of the population have been forcibly displaced, but nowhere is safe for them. Hundreds of thousands of people are living without shelter in cold weather, with precious little access to food, water and healthcare. Famine and disease epidemics are way too close now. Humanitarian access is being limited in a way that even Ministers here are clear is completely and utterly unjustified.
The siege must end. None of this is compatible with the universal human rights that all our faiths and all our traditions hold dear, which are rights that we, in turn, see as a foundation for our own peace and security. We need an immediate halt to the violence in Gaza, with a sustained ceasefire; we need a genuine process to bring about a fair and just two-state peace; and we need accountability through the independent international system, within which the same rules apply to all.
Many of these calls apply equally to Sudan, where tens of thousands have been killed and 7.6 million people have been forcibly displaced since the conflict began last April. If hon. Members will forgive me, I want to spell out some of the conclusions from the recent report of the UN panel of experts on Darfur. The report details some of the absolute horrors that the Sudanese people have been subjected to over the past months, because of a conflict between two generals.
Last summer, we raised the alarm about what was happening in the city of El Geneina in Darfur: targeted massacres; the burning of refugee camps; women and girls raped because of their ethnicity, as a weapon of war; and families deliberately trapped, and shot if they tried to flee. It had the obvious and terrible echoes of the acts of genocide alleged in Darfur 20 years ago.
The new report states that the death toll in that small city alone is likely to have been between 10,000 and 15,000 people. A girls’ boarding school and its neighbouring school were sheltering 4,500 civilian families. They were bombed with heavy artillery. Every hospital in the city was looted and destroyed. A convoy of thousands of women and children, injured elderly people and animals fleeing the city was attacked indiscriminately when it reached a bridge. An estimated 1,000 people were killed in that attack alone, and 100 are reported to have drowned in an attempt to flee the attacks on the bridge. Human rights monitors were killed while reporting on the atrocities taking place.
The report sets out some very clear details and assessments of where the weapons used in those attacks came from. Although I know that the Government will not comment on ongoing sanctions work, I would like an assurance that the evidence from this report is being taken extremely seriously, because we need to see further action in response to these atrocities.
I also say gently to the Government that we need a more concerted and consistent approach to the atrocities being committed in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, too. That conflict is an open wound. Young children are being subjected to brutal violence of all kinds by armed groups, including rape, and are recruited as soldiers in their hundreds. Some 720,000 people have fled their homes just since October, adding to almost 7 million local refugees. More than 11 million people are going hungry in just the three most affected provinces.
Many armed guards have been identified as responsible for the atrocities, but I believe that it is important to highlight the M23 militia, because it has clearly played the biggest role in the violence over the last two years. Time and again, credible reports from the UN and human rights organisations have assessed that elements within the Rwandan armed forces and intelligence services are responsible for materially supporting M23. Our closest allies have noted that, too. They have noted, equally, the Government’s apparent reticence to play our part and to follow their suit.
Understandably, there is a suspicion that the reason for our inconsistency and inaction on this issue is the Rwanda migration deal, Tory infighting, and foreign policy that is effectively being run from the Home Office. This massively damages our relationship with the DRC, which is really an important partner across so many issues. Equally, how can we say that the UK is genuinely supporting the human rights of all when we are being seen as utterly inconsistent on this issue? I believe we need a Government who can more effectively support human rights abroad.
I will not pretend that any of this is easy. I know that our influence is limited and that sometimes symbolic acts of rejection and disengagement do more harm than good—I honestly get that, but I believe that we need to rebuild our connections with countries around the world and recognise how the world is changing. If we do not, our actions in support of human rights will have precious little impact. We will be shouting into a void while being heard by no one.
I know that we are not solely responsible for righting all the wrongs of the world, but surely we must do our part. The Opposition believe that if we are smarter, more strategic and more consistent in our engagement around the world, we can have greater impact within our partnerships, but that requires our words and actions to be aligned in support of human rights.
On arms exports, for example, a Labour Government would reform the system so that it is transparent and committed to upholding international law. The criteria say that licences should not be granted where there are clear risks of UK arms being used for internal oppression or violations of international humanitarian laws, but the Minister will recognise that just having those criteria is not enough. The judgments that are made when applying the criteria need to be clear and accountable, and they need to be credible.
It is frankly difficult to believe that the criteria could have been applied robustly in some cases. Israel has faced very serious allegations from bodies including the United Nations and is the subject of ongoing investigation by the International Criminal Court. That raises very serious questions about how licences could be granted to Israel. It is not just about the quality of judgments being made in some cases; it is about the quality of the assessments available to inform these judgments. In a number of cases, whether it is Myanmar, Ethiopia or Sudan, I believe that there have been clear weaknesses in our foreign policy—because we simply have not been monitoring the warning signs well enough, or we do not have joined-up policy structures that can respond quickly and effectively, or we have not had the capacity to map the perpetrators and the sources of atrocity risks and have not identified their lines of support, shut them down and held them to account.
The international development White Paper pointed in the right direction, and we welcome that. We want to build on it, should we win the next election. But frankly, only a smart, strategic, cross-Government approach can truly help to prevent atrocities, systematic abuses of human rights, and the dire, sickening, shameful consequences of those abuses, which we are seeing in so many places around the world—in Sudan, in DRC and in Gaza.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lyn Brown Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
In Gaza, almost 80% of the population have been forced from their homes with nowhere safe to go. Sewage is flowing in the streets, with enormous risk to health, while hospitals and ambulances continue to be hit. Half the population are starving. The most recent report is of over 18,000 Palestinians killed, including utterly appalling numbers of children. I recognise the efforts of Ministers, but it is barely even slowing down the tide of death when the humanitarian crisis simply needs to end. What is the Minister’s strategy to do that?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN Convention on Genocide
Lyn Brown Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I am very grateful to be called, Ms McDonagh. I believe this is the first time that I have served under your chairship; I hope it will not be the last. I am also very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and the hon. Members for Henley (John Howell) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale and the hon. Member for Strangford spoke with great knowledge and passion, and I am grateful to them. I also want to put on record my best wishes to the hon. Member for Henley for a speedy and full recovery. Before I start, I would also like to thank in particular Kate Ferguson of Protection Approaches, who works with Members across the House. She is a real source of huge support on how we can use our tools more strategically to prevent atrocities.
The 75th anniversaries of the universal declaration on human rights and the genocide convention are this weekend, and I want to start by noting what an achievement they were. The world came together after the devastation of the second world war and the utter unprecedented horror of the holocaust, and committed to action. I know we all believe that working together internationally against genocide and human rights abuses is no less essential today.
As we have heard, right now in Sudan there are massive numbers of people under threat. The past weeks and months have brought more and more evidence of mass killings, rapes and the systematic forced displacement of civilians. The evidence is particularly strong that the Masalit communities are repeatedly—repeatedly—targeted for atrocities. Right now, El Fasher in North Darfur is in desperate peril. Civilians in Khartoum continue to be killed and denied humanitarian access, and the violence is spreading.
I truly welcome the United States’ determination of war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and in particular the recognition that arms and funding to the military faction fuels the horror, not matter what the source. I believe the US determination builds on work in this House and in Government, where we have worked together to shine just a fraction of the light that Sudan’s crisis requires. As we warned before the summer, permanent partition or even state collapse in Sudan is an increasingly serious risk. The scale of atrocities that could result, in addition to the many already committed, is simply enormous.
Despite the severity of the humanitarian crisis, the UK, as the UN Security Council penholder on Sudan, is now presiding over the closure of the UN’s Sudan mission. So far, the international community has not had enough co-ordination and commitment for the mediation in Saudi Arabia or the African Union’s leadership to have an impact. The situation is utterly bleak. It is joined, as we know, by the sheer horror in Gaza that we see day after day on our screens, where children are being killed in their thousands as their homes are bombed; where civilians are being kettled into so-called safe zones that are anything but; and where the siege continues and humanitarian access is denied despite the tireless efforts of colleagues.
[Ian Paisley in the Chair]
However, we cannot just sit here and wring our hands. I believe that we cannot be content with symbolic acts of condemnation, and we cannot let petty political divisions take hold—not when it comes to Sudan, Myanmar or Gaza. We must not allow ourselves to be distracted from what we can actually do, because, as the raw ongoing experiences of Sudan teach us, the way in which we work against atrocities and support universal human rights needs to adapt. Let us face it: we live in a more polarised world than in recent decades, and it is far more complex and fragmented than in the 1950s. The relationships that we need to navigate are much larger in number and massively diverse in nature. Misinformation and hate speech spread at a speed and scale that we have never seen before. That means that we must approach these questions from a place of humility and respect, recognising that we are not always the best people to lead; that we do not always have the answer; and that trust is hard-won and easily lost. We must recognise that our international reputation has been damaged over recent years and look to renew it.
Sadly, many of the tools of the multilateral system, such as Security Council resolutions and UN sanctions, simply are not as accessible as they once were. To be frank, as we know, that is sometimes because Russia sees chaos, destruction and division as being in its interest. However, in other cases it is much more complicated than that.
Jim Shannon
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. I recall that this morning I got a message—actually, a video —on my phone. The message was clear: 120,000 Christians in Artsakh—I hope that is pronounced correctly—in Armenia are under threat. They have no gas, water or electricity; they have no hope, and they are being butchered by an Islamic regime sponsored by Russia. I will make a plea for them, if the Minister is listening. That is another example of genocide against my brothers and sisters.
Ms Brown
Certainly. I hear the hon. Gentleman’s plea, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to respond to that with knowledge and compassion. I argue that the causes I spoke about earlier, and which we have all spoken about today, make the challenges of this agenda so much more challenging, not less—and more necessary.
It is now more important to support accountability through the International Criminal Court, including in conflicts we see on our screens day in, day out in Ukraine, Palestine and Israel. It is more important to work with civil society and protect human rights defenders and journalists. Most importantly, in a world that seems ever more dangerous, the prevention duty in the genocide convention is more relevant, not less. If we are smart and strategic, we can do a lot to work against the perpetrators, enablers and drivers of atrocities. The UK has powerful strengths that we can deploy, including our still-expansive diplomatic network and national expertise in legal and financial services.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale and for Putney (Fleur Anderson) have said, we need to raise the alarm early, based on more extensive mapping and monitoring of atrocity risks and stronger links to civil society organisations. We need to work with our partners to bring together information about the networks that fuel atrocities, rapidly build awareness of patterns of rising violence and share evidence of responsibility. We then need to be proactive by using that greater understanding of those driving the violence to press armed groups towards de-escalation and mediation and to cut off external backers’ money to perpetrators.
We need to empower our excellent in-country diplomats to support the community-level leaders and human rights defenders who can make the difference when it matters most to prevent an escalating crisis. That is so rarely about big, flashy money; it is about rapid, quiet support for those who can calm tensions, provide credible alternative narratives in place of incitement and, if the worst comes to the worst, document the violence so that perpetrators can be held to account. It surely goes without saying that preventing a crisis avoids the vastly bigger costs of humanitarian aid, forced migration, emergency evacuations of UK nationals and the loss of development opportunities, which are shattered for years to come. And it saves lives.
What I am saying is that we need a prevention-first approach. The White Paper makes genuine, welcome progress on that, but we now need consistent leadership to turn words into reality over the coming years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale said, there are serious concerns about Rwanda—internally in terms of human rights and externally via the evidence of atrocities by the March 23 Movement in the DRC. That has been raised in FCDO, in addition to being raised multiple times by colleagues on both sides of the House. I gently say that it may damage our relationships with many partners if there is a suspicion that a narrow migration partnership, which the Opposition do not support, might be getting in the way of consistent UK support for human rights and atrocity prevention.
But it is not all bleakness and horror. If we work together and are strategic, we can help to slow the increasing violence across the world. To give just one example, there is hope that the draft convention on prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity will continue to make progress with UK support. Perhaps—just perhaps—the convention might add strength where some argue that existing international laws fall short. Perhaps there will be more legal and diplomatic clarity in future about the intentional denial of access to food, water or medicine in internal conflict. Sadly, that has been evidenced in recent years in Ethiopia and now in Sudan.
We need to consistently support progress where we can. A safer world, where rights are protected for all, is a world with far fewer people in desperate need of humanitarian aid. It is a world where the politics of division and hatred is harder for malign actors to exploit, and it is a world with more opportunities and security for the UK—a world where we do not scrabble from crisis to crisis, but where our long-term international partnerships can flourish for mutual benefit. Surely we want to live in a world where the high ideals of 75 years ago are truly honoured and implemented, and surely that is worth fighting for, with strategic thinking and with passion.
Debt in Africa
Lyn Brown Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for securing the debate. His record of standing up for people affected by crises in Africa and around the world speaks for itself—it is absolutely exemplary. He and I agree that working with African countries to address their concerns, challenges and opportunities is very important. As we know, Africa’s potential is massive. It has young, dynamic, talented, fast-growing populations, but African economies are being held back by climate heating, disasters, conflict and debt.
Debt sustainability is a terribly complex issue once we get into the details, but on one level it is very simple: Governments hamstrung by debt burdens cannot meet their people’s needs or aspirations. Currently, uncertainty around debt is driving away investment and undermining many African countries’ economic growth and climate progress. The average debt ratio in sub-Saharan Africa has nearly doubled over the past decade, going from 30% of GDP in 2013 to almost 60% last year. The cost of debt has become far more expensive, and even before recent crises, it was far higher than for higher-income countries.
Many countries are recovering from the economic damage wreaked by covid, climate shocks and conflicts, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, so it is not surprising that 20 African countries are either in debt distress or at high risk of it. We have already seen the attempts of four African states to manage huge debts thwarted by the slow and cumbersome common framework process.
Ghana, for example—one of our key partners in Africa—is cut off from international markets while debt negotiations go on and on. Ghana cannot reap the full rewards of its resources and enormous human potential, and we in the UK cannot access the mutual benefits that would flow from its growth. The Bridgetown initiative, the Nairobi declaration and key figures at the International Monetary Fund are calling on us to speed up debt relief talks and make the global debt system fairer and more efficient.
I am pleased to see the Government’s international development White Paper recognise the need to improve global debt processes, but there are obviously huge questions about the Government’s commitment to take the necessary steps if we are actually going to do that. As we know, one of the problems with the common framework is that a small number of private creditors can hold up the entire process by refusing to take part in restructuring, in the hope of securing a higher return than others. We know that many of those private creditors operate under English law, because of the strength of the City of London in global finance. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether her Government have changed their position since May.
Will the Minister review the benefits and risks of legislating to stop creditors from acting in bad faith and holding up negotiations? Does she agree that the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act 2010 did not have the negative unintended consequences that some feared it would? When the international development White Paper was being developed, why did the Government not see the cross-party consensus behind that Act as a starting point to build on over the coming years? Surely recognising the UK’s history of action and outsized role in private sovereign debt could strengthen our influence and credibility at the G20 and other international fora. It could enable us to work better with the United States, opening up opportunities for co-ordinated reform. It could supplement our efforts to improve multilateral systems and debt transparency.
In her response, I can guess the Minister might talk about the good work being done to roll out climate resilient debt clauses, but does she recognise that those clauses will not be enough on their own? It is not only countries in the grip of an extreme weather event, or a health disaster, that will need fiscal space. In many African countries, the huge swings in global interest rates and commodity prices are equally relevant.
The international development White Paper states that the Government will support suspensions of debt payments while negotiations are ongoing, and, “where relevant”. I would be grateful if the Minister said more about what the Government mean by “where relevant”, and what they are doing about bringing back consensus on debt service repayment suspensions at the G20. Does she agree that suspensions can speed up negotiations, which is surely in all our interests?
The Minister knows that calls have been made for the UK to use our influence at the IMF to produce a definition of unsustainable debt for the common framework. In May, her Government rejected those calls when the International Development Committee recommended action. Perhaps she could say a little about what she is doing to make the definition of unsustainable debt clearer and how she is helping to make progress more predictable.
I know that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), understands the need for action, from his very welcome comments about vulture funds over the past months. The international development White Paper mentions support for voluntary collective action clauses and majority voting provisions. Does the Minister here today agree that those have not fully solved the problems caused by vulture funds?
When I speak to African ambassadors, Ministers, business leaders and civil society groups, they are clear about what they want from the UK: partnership, not patronage. I heard the same message last week in Kenya. When we talk about our collaboration with African countries, it is not just about development assistance or private investment—as the Minister knows, we would love to see more of both. It is equally about structural reform and smart collaboration with our partners. For example, I know that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, has recently been working hard on the global food security summit. I gently say that if we did more to unblock the common framework process, that would free up funds for African countries to spend on their food security agendas.
We all recognise the role of humanitarian aid. It saves lives in massive numbers and is absolutely essential, but we know that supporting resilient food systems that prevent hunger and malnutrition would be a far better way to proceed. At very little cost to ourselves, we could take steps to make sure that the processes we influence, such as the global sovereign debt system, really do provide fair benefits to us and to the countries that use them. We recognise that these issues are complex and sometimes genuinely difficult, but none of us wants to undermine the basis for future private bilateral and multilateral investment in African countries. The mutual benefits and the need for such investments are huge. However, we need to seriously consider the argument that greater confidence in comparability of treatment between private and official creditors will not undermine investment; instead, it could enable investment by creating more transparency and certainty.
These debates are technical, but they are also really important for hundreds of millions of people. It took three very long years after Zambia’s default for a debt restructuring even to be agreed in principle. Even worse, the process is far from over. The issue of comparability of treatment between official creditors and bondholders is a core barrier holding Zambia back.
Doing our bit to solve the debt crisis is essential to being a good partner to our friends. It affects the UK’s long-term interests. Let me stick with Zambia for a moment: we are talking about a country that is likely to play a massive role in the global green energy transition through its wealth in copper and other critical minerals. By being a positive partner to Zambia, we can demonstrate the serious offer we have to growing countries across Africa and support progress on security, democracy and human rights in the wider southern and central Africa regions.
We have already seen Zambian leadership on these issues, through their role in election monitoring in Zimbabwe, for example. That is the positive side—opportunities can be seized. However, there is a negative side, too, because the debt crisis is one of the background factors that enables insecurity to grow in many African countries. Where Governments cannot provide services to their populations, people are left alienated and hopeless. We know that insurgencies, coups and armed groups thrive where trust and hope has vanished. By speeding up restructuring processes, we could do something to address the root causes of insecurity in Africa, at little cost to the Treasury.
When it comes to the threats that face us, the biggest is climate heating. Whether Africa makes its green transition in a fair and timely way matters to the UK, as we all live on the same planet, and there is enormous potential to mitigate and adapt to climate change across the continent. However, the funding is not there, and the international development White Paper acknowledges that it cannot all come from international assistance or private sector investment. We have to free up African public funds if climate change is to be tackled in a joined-up, strategic way—the same way we plan to tackle it here in the UK.
The Government’s White Paper acknowledges some of the harms done by our failing global debt system. That is truly welcome, but I hope the Minister agrees that what we need to do now is go beyond acknowledgement and act, because there is no more time for us to lose.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lyn Brown Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I, too, wish to put on record my solidarity with those who are living in fear and heartbreak in Gaza and Israel.
The withdrawal from Afghanistan was an absolute debacle. It is a continuing source of shame to this country that so many people who helped us, trusted us, relied on us, have been absolutely abandoned. We are hearing horrifying reports from those who have done the right thing and taken terrible risks to escape to Pakistan, who are now living in constant fear of arrest or deportation because this Government have left them in limbo. My question is simple: how many are still waiting and how much longer will they have to wait?
Leo Docherty
Respectfully, we have not left them in limbo. The situation is extremely difficult. It is difficult because of the depredations of—let me be very clear—the tyrannical regime of the Taliban; that is why we are in this situation. We have relocated more than 21,000 people, and we continue to work at pace with our mission in Pakistan and elsewhere to ensure that these people, despite the local troubles and difficulties, get the support they need.