Freedom of Religion or Belief: Sudan

Debate between Mark Sewards and Jim Shannon

Thursday 11th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered freedom of religion or belief in Sudan.

It is a real pleasure to introduce this debate, which is one that I have sought for some time. It is also a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker—we have been friends for so many years in this House, and I appreciate that. It is a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), in his place, although he is not who I was told would be here. It is in no way a disappointment; it is just that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore) happened to tell me, “I’ll see you on Thursday”, but there we are.

It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), who I spoke to beforehand; we have had a good friendship in this House. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), always turns up at my debates—I am not sure whether that is because he is made to or because he has a deep interest in them, but knowing him, I am going for the latter reason.

Why is this debate important? Sudan has been in my heart—and in all our hearts, I think—for a long time. There are many other things that people could be doing. We are well aware of the date of the Makerfield by-election, and I know people are committing themselves to that, which I understand. The shadow Minister told me that some Members who are speaking in the debate in the main Chamber on the legacy of Jo Cox also wanted to be here. There are others who also wished to participate but are in the Chamber.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time to discuss the severe violations of freedom of religion or belief in Sudan. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson will bring to this debate his personal experience—I did not know until a short time ago that he was in Sudan in 2022—and his knowledge of that time there and some of the things that have happened since.

It burdens my soul when terrible persecution and unspeakable violence take place against my brothers and sisters in the Lord—Christians—and those of other faiths. Muslims have not been outside the abuse, attacks and violence. Terrorist groups are committed to destroying Sudan, and they do not seem to worry a bit about what happens.

As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I have watched with great concern as Sudan has descended into the largest current humanitarian crisis on earth. The number of people displaced and murdered, and the level of abuse that takes place against women and young girls, are horrendous. Those things really quite annoy me, and they annoy us all. I cannot quite understand why anybody wants to be so evil, wicked and depraved against women and children. It is inconceivable; my mind cannot take it in.

Since April 2023, more than 150,000 people are estimated to have been killed—some figures are even above that—and up to 15 million people have been displaced from their homes. Famine has taken hold in the Zamzam displacement camp, and millions more face hunger, fear and uncertainty every day of their lives. Sudan is fourth in the world watch list—that is like the premier league, but fourth place in this premier league does not look good, as it is about atrocities, persecution, human rights abuses and other things taking place. The top four or five are the worst places in the world, including North Korea, China and parts of Russia.

In February, the United Nations fact-finding mission reported on the actions of the Rapid Support Forces around El Fasher. At that particular time, there were incredible reports filtering through of the murderous intent of the Rapid Support Forces and the hallmarks of genocide, particularly in the targeting of non-Arab communities, including the Fur and Zaghawa peoples. Those words should make every one of us stop and think: hallmarks of genocide—men, women and children killed because they happened to be Christians, Muslims or, as far as the Rapid Support Forces are concerned, the enemy.

The situation in Sudan is one of hatred, identity-based violence and impunity at its worst. In my lifetime, though to a much lesser degree, I have seen in Northern Ireland—you will be aware of this, Mrs Barker—how hatred is allowed to overcome basic humanity. I have always tried in my life to be circumspect about those things, to take in what happens while also looking at how we move on and bring society together. We have done that in Northern Ireland, but Sudan is nowhere near that point.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman has been a powerful advocate for religious freedom right across the world, and his speech underlines that even further. Like him, I looked at the Open Doors world watch list, which said that Sudan is now the fourth worst place in the world to be a Christian. That is not just because of the war; it is because churches are being burned down and Christians are being forcibly converted, in addition to mosques being attacked and the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe taking place right across that country.

I absolutely welcome the £146 million that the UK Government have released in humanitarian aid, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only way we are going to get a lasting solution to this crisis is if the UK uses every lever at its disposal—including its role as the official penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council—to broker a ceasefire?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words. We spoke beforehand in the Chamber to go over what he has just referred to. There is a key role to play. We are very fortunate to have the Minister in his place, and that the Government have given that £146 million of humanitarian aid. I suspect that it probably does not get to where it should—that is not the fault of the Government or the Minister—but there is a commitment from this Government and from our Minister on that.

In reference to the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), let me say that no cause, grievance or political objective can ever justify the targeting of civilians, the destruction of places of worship or the abuse of women and children. As I said earlier, the depravity of those carrying out those vile things against innocent people is inconceivable.

In Sudan, places that should be treated as sanctuaries are being treated with contempt and disregard. In June 2025, the Rapid Support Forces bombed the Sudanese Episcopal church, the African Inland church and the Roman Catholic church in El Fasher. Father Luka Jomo, a devoted parish priest, later died from his injuries. He was not from El Fasher, but his duty as a pastor and priest who reaches out to help people was to stay with them and remain there during the siege, serving a community that was predominantly Muslim. That is Christianity at work.

I would love to see a world in which we can all have different religions, if that is the way it is, but still stand up for each other. That is what we should do, and I believe Father Luka Jomo did exactly that in the most compassionate way, ultimately giving his life for the belief that he held. That speaks powerfully of his faith, courage and love for the people whom he served and ultimately died for.

Of course, this disregard for human life extends to people of all faiths. In September 2025, the Rapid Support Forces attacked a mosque near Abdul Shouk camp during dawn prayers, killing over 70 people. Those people were praying, at peace and in touch with their God, yet they were murdered. In Khartoum, the Pentecostal Church premises in El Haj Yousif, El Shegla, were destroyed by extremists and members of the Sudanese armed forces. I have probably destroyed some of those words with my Ulster Scots accent, never mind my interpretation, but I am trying to put on record my concern for all those places that I will probably never see, and all those people whom I will probably never meet in this world, but hopefully will meet in the next.

For those who flee, the nightmare often continues. There are reports of Christians—my brothers and sisters—who had fled from areas controlled by the Rapid Support Forces being arrested and detained in areas controlled by the Sudanese armed forces. It seems to be not only the terrorist groups who show disregard for human life, but sometimes the Government troops as well.

In October 2024, military intelligence officials in Shendi reportedly arrested 26 Christian men from the Sudanese Church of Christ, accusing them of being affiliated with the Rapid Support Forces. These accusations do not appear to have been based on any evidence—because there is no evidence to prove them—but on suspicion, on ethnicity and on the locations those people had fled from. They just happened to come from an area that the Rapid Support Forces had chased them from, and then the officials said that they were from that group. It really is quite hard to believe.

There are also wider concerns about what has been called the “strange faces” policy, which is rather hard to understand. Under that policy, people who are perceived— I emphasise the word “perceived”; it is not fact—to belong to communities linked with one side or the other have been harassed, detained or accused of criminal offences, even though there is little or no evidence to prove that they are guilty of any of them. Christian communities have been affected, too; many of them come from the Nuba mountains and the people are of African ethnicity.

We must also confront the horrific reality of conflict-related sexual violence. Such violence is inconceivable; it is wicked, depraved and evil for anyone to take advantage of a woman or a young girl just because they are female. Women and girls have been raped, abducted and taken into sexual slavery; one young married woman had her young daughters taken away from her and—against their will, obviously—taken into sexual slavery. They were brought up in a good home, but what happened to them is depraved.

There are reports of men experiencing sexual violence in detention, as well. There are people of depravity in control of jails and in other positions of power who carry out their most depraved acts upon those whom they have a responsibility to look after. Survivors need medical care, social support and access to justice.

I have three or four asks of the Minister, and I must say that it really is a joy to see him here. His choice of words and his tone are calming; no matter how dark the statements that he makes in the main Chamber—and sometimes such statements are pretty dark—he develops a tone that perhaps calm us; it calms me, anyway. It is important that we can relate to a Minister who I believe has the heart for the stories that we are telling. We thank him for that.

On the resources that have been made available for work not only in South Sudan but for refugees in neighbouring countries, the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley referred in an intervention to £146 million in humanitarian aid, which covers some of the things that we are doing. But what about those who need medical help, those facing the trauma of depravities committed against them, the young children who are not being educated, because there are no teachers and no schools to teach in, or the neighbouring countries to which refugees have fled?

The treatment of women and girls by depraved men is reprehensible. We must intervene to support those who work in this area, not simply to help those who have been directly affected, but to train a generation to understand that rape and sexual violence are despicable, and that the actions of the past cannot be the actions of the future.

The United Kingdom has a particular responsibility because, to go back to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention once again, we are the penholder on Sudan at the United Nations Security Council, and we have played a leading role on Sudan at the United Nations Human Rights Council. That gives us a duty to lead. I do not believe for one second that the Minister is not doing that, and I do not believe for one second that the Government are not doing that, but is there a better way of doing it? Can we encourage others to be, on paper, a penholder, as we are in the United Kingdom? Maybe there is a bigger role for the United States, the rest of Europe, those in the western world and those who have a heart for the people and compassion for those who are under pressure.

I think the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley must have read my three points; I did not show him my speech, but he ascertained what the issues were very quickly, and I congratulate him on that. I urge the Minister to press for an immediate ceasefire, safe humanitarian access, and the protection of civilians, churches, mosques and other places of worship. I ask the Minister and the Government to support the mandate of the United Nations fact-finding mission for the Sudan and to ensure that it is fully resourced and not watered down.

I am not here to criticise the Government for the moneys set aside for other countries across the world. We understand the financial pressures that are reducing those. In the debate in the main Chamber on the legacy of Jo Cox, the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), referred to the Department for International Development and the reduction in development spending. DFID is the soft approach; the other approach is a military one, of course, but there are other ways to do it. We have been clear that we are happy to hear the Minister’s ideas about how we can protect civilians, churches, mosques and places of worship and how we can support the United Nations fact-finding mission for the Sudan. Once we have all the details from the fact-finding mission, what plan of action will we take forward to ensure that things get better?

I also ask the Government to press for the Darfur arms embargo to be extended across the whole of Sudan and for the mandate of the International Criminal Court investigation, currently focused on Darfur, to be extended to the whole country. I am a great believer—this is a personal thing, but I believe that there are many in this House who feel the same—that while people in this world may think they get away with certain things, there is a day coming in the next world when they will be held accountable. What I want in this world is for them to be accountable for their crimes, their depravities, their abuse of women and children, their murders and their killing. I want them to be brought before an International Criminal Court investigation. I would be deeply indebted to the Minister if he could give us some indication of what is happening in relation to the International Criminal Court investigation.

There must also be accountability for those outside Sudan who are fuelling the war. If other states are supplying arms, funds or political cover to either side, that must be called out; I will mention one shortly. The United Kingdom should not be afraid to use sanctions against those who enable atrocities, inside or outside Sudan—it does not matter where they are in the world— and hold them accountable. I am quite sure that our Government and our Minister will make that happen.

There is a country that many of us feel is involved in this conflict right up to its neck. Concerns have been raised about the alleged role of the United Arab Emirates in supporting the Rapid Support Forces. The United Arab Emirates has denied any wrongdoing. It is so holier than thou, or at least it tries to be—but no; its hands are dirty and bloody, and it is time for it to be held accountable. The allegations made are serious and simply cannot be ignored. If any external state is supplying arms, funds or logistical support to those committing atrocities, it must be held to account. There must be a time when the United Arab Emirates and whoever is involved in these activities are held accountable.

I referred to the campaign for the Premier League to raise concerns with Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour, who is also a senior political figure in the United Arab Emirates. Abdallah Idriss Abugarda, a survivor of the first Darfur genocide and leader of the Darfur Diaspora Association, has made the point that football is powerful. The first match of the world cup is tonight, and we are going to see the power of football over the next fortnight or three weeks. Well, here is an opportunity for the power of football to do something for the people, stopping the supply of arms, funds and logistical support. The owner of Manchester City should do his bit as well.

Football is powerful, and with power comes moral responsibility. It is not just about playing the magnificent game for 90 minutes plus extra time. Whether in sport, diplomacy or trade, no institution should turn away from credible concerns about atrocities. That is why accountability must not stop at Sudan’s borders. If we are serious about ending this war, we must look at not only those pulling the trigger, but those supplying funding and enabling the violence.

If the Minister does not mind, I would like some direction about any discussions with the UAE. Have there been any discussions, with the influence of Man City, perhaps? I am not a Man City supporter—this is not about what team I support. I support Leicester City, and we are now in the first division. If we are not careful, we might be in the second; I digress slightly but, when Coventry City went down, it took them 20 years to come back up. I hope it will not take 20 years for Leicester to come back. I hope it will be sooner than that.

A lasting peace can be built only on justice, accountability and the protection of all Sudanese people: Muslim, Christian, whoever. The destruction of places of worship must end; the targeting of civilians must end; the abuse of women and girls must, must, must end; the obstruction of aid must end. The people of Sudan deserve peace, justice, protection and the freedom to believe, worship and live without fear.

We must do all within our power—the physical and emotional power that we have in this country—to help the people of Sudan to change their nation and deliver hope and a future to their young people, the people of tomorrow. As a grandfather, I often think not just of my three boys, but of my six grandchildren and the place I want to leave them in. We want to leave the same thing for their young people. Women and children are valuable to God and to us, and he cares for them as we do.

I often finish with a scripture text. Today, it is Ephesians 6, where it tells us: “Having done all…stand.” The people of Sudan cannot stand alone, so my final request is that our Government stand with them and support their nation. Today, in Westminster Hall, we stand; we can do no other.

Funeral Premises: Environmental Health Inspections

Debate between Mark Sewards and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I always try to be helpful by talking about what we do in Northern Ireland. Issues around funeral service premises are sensitive and people must be treated with care when they are dealing with the death of loved ones. In Northern Ireland, funeral premises operate within general health and safety frameworks rather than a dedicated inspection programme. There is also no published fixed frequency for routine environmental health inspections. Does he agree that more must be done to create clearer regulation? I believe that the code of conduct in Scotland would be helpful to ensure industry standards and oversee premises and services more consistently.

[Mark Sewards]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the example of Scotland, which I encourage the Minister to consider. I think the Government should consider everything the hon. Gentleman set out, which I will come on to.

This debate is about a fundamental issue that many of us find difficult to talk about—death. The treatment and dignity of our dead is not typically a subject for dinnertime conversation; those who have experienced bereavement, which is most of us, know how complicated and emotionally overwhelming it can be. At such a vulnerable time, one of the few sources of comfort should be the reassurance that a trusted funeral director is caring for a loved one with dignity, professionalism and respect. The vast majority of funeral directors live up to and often exceed such expectations. People’s trust has been betrayed by a very small number of rogue operators. Each stunning revelation about a rogue operator —in some cases, they have even desecrated remains—has a compounding effect on the public’s consciousness. People used to believe that the funeral sector was regulated, but they now know that it is not regulated, and they worry about the consequences of that for their families.

There are a variety of options open to the Government to solve this problem. Empowering local authorities to carry out environmental health inspections, which I will get to, is one of them; introducing a national standard is another; and empowering trade bodies should also be considered. Ultimately, however, we have to establish an independent statutory regulatory regime. I want to be clear that inaction is not an option that we should consider. I firmly believe that statutory regulation should be introduced for this sector. However, that will take time and primary legislation to achieve, so we need to consider our options for such regulation and what can happen in the interim.

Environmental health inspections could act as a stopgap before full regulation, or become the statutory regime itself, or both. However, there are differing opinions. I have spoken to representatives of the funeral service industry, including from the two largest trade bodies: the National Association of Funeral Directors, or the NAFD; and the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors, or SAIF. I have also had discussions with Co-op Funeralcare, having visited its premises in Leeds. I am also very pleased to serve as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on funerals, coroners and bereavement, which brings together many organisations from across the sector, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said in his intervention.

Every person and every operator who I have spoken to about this situation is appalled by the cases they have seen. They know how vital public confidence is to the funeral profession. They want the reassurance that a statutory regime will come into place, although views on what it should look like definitely differ.

Environmental health inspections could help to build back trust, but only if there is a unified national standard that funeral premises must adhere to. But that is precisely what we do not have right now: there is no statutory inspection regime in relation to the services provided by funeral directors. My constituent Cody put it best when she said that it is harder to set up a burger van than it is to set up a funeral home. Shockingly, she is right about that.

There are no routine checks or minimum standards of funeral homes outside those established by the trade bodies. The Government are still considering the Fuller inquiry’s recommendations on funeral sector regulation and inspections. I am very grateful for the engagement that I have had on this issue, particularly with the Ministry of Justice, including with the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). She met me and some of my constituents towards the end of last year, and she was phenomenal in that meeting.

However, I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister who is here today: what assessment has her Department made of the Fuller inquiry’s recommendation to establish a statutory regulatory regime for funeral directors in England? I appreciate that that is really a question for the Department of Health and Social Care, but given that it also affects her Department, I hope she has a view on it.

That question matters because of the steps that the Government have taken in the past. In May 2024, the Ministry of Justice and the then Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities wrote to all councils in England to strongly encourage them to inspect funeral premises. The letter said that this was to reassure the public that the sector as a whole is safe. That was a welcome step at the time, both for the public and the sector, but those visits were never intended as technical deep-dive inspections. Instead, they were conducted to check whether everything was generally in order.

The NAFD supported those visits, and it encouraged its members to co-operate and demonstrate the high standards required of them. It advised the environmental health officers on good practice and hosted webinars to help members to prepare for their visits. However, most of those EHOs had limited experience of visiting funeral premises. It is also unclear the extent to which local authorities communicated their findings back to the Ministry of Justice and to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Has the Minister’s Department collated the information that was collected through those 2024 inspections? If it has, will it use that information to inform any position that it might take in relation to funeral sector regulation?

In my view, it is concerning that those inspections failed to identify the problems that came to light when my constituents needed help. Leeds city council participated in those inspections, but to my knowledge it did not inspect Florrie’s Army or identify it as a provider of concern at the time.

That also highlights a wider issue. There is scope for environmental health inspections to be carried out by local authorities and EHOs, but that approach would probably be best employed as a short-term or interim option. It must not act as a shield against wider regulation of the funeral industry. Environmental health officers may not have the relevant sector-specific experience, but they have the skills in overlapping elements, such as infection prevention, premises hygiene and safety. The benefit of utilising EHOs is that a move to expand their remit would not necessarily require primary legislation in the short term. It would be the quickest route to ensuring some sort of Government-backed regular inspections regime, but the issue of national standards would still be outstanding.

Horse and Rider Road Safety

Debate between Mark Sewards and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), who I spoke to beforehand about the issue. He is absolutely on the button with what he has requested.

I am the MP for a rural constituency, and I live on a farm in the midst of the unmatchable and beautiful countryside of Strangford, so the presence of horses on the country roads is not surprising. I see them all the time; my neighbours all have horses, and I know personally to slow down and give the horse a wide berth of 2 metres. There are riding schools and stables in the vicinity as well, so it is not simply the horse signage that tells people to be mindful in their road usage. For people who are not local, however, their knowledge is limited, and that is why it is essential that road users in the country are aware of the potential to come across a number of horses on the country roads.

I support the presentation Bill of the hon. Member for Newbury, and I hope that it can progress further. Some in the city may not be aware of the prevalence of horses on the roads, so their first trip to the country might bring about a whole new world. They might not understand that the need to slow down to pass a horse and give it a wide berth is not only useful—it is vital. Operation Gallop by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, NI Direct and the British Horse Society all promote shared responsibility, because horses are easily spooked. Instead of driving fast by a horse and rider, motorists must slow to 10 mph and pass 2 metres wide of the horse, avoiding noise and sudden movements. Riders should wear hi-vis clothes, use signals and follow road rules, keeping left and to single file if the road is busy. That can be the difference between life and death.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, but I will not give way again.

[Mark Sewards]

Very briefly, a young woman from my constituency described the scenario that the hon. Gentleman talks about. She is insured and wears hi-vis clothes, but now faces regular intimidation and abuse, so she has to go out with a camera. Despite that, she still faces those problems. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s flagship road safety campaign is exactly the right way to go, but that we need to do more in this area to keep riders safe?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.

I will be very brief. As of late 2025, the British Horse Society said that a significant majority of equestrians—78%—have experienced an incident while using the roads, which is what the hon. Gentleman was referring to. Nationally, 81% of incidents occur because a driver passed a horse too closely or quickly.

Knowledge and an understanding of the consequences can and will address these concerns. I support the drive of the hon. Member for Newbury to put safety first on our countryside roads for our horses and riders throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Mass Transit: West Yorkshire

Debate between Mark Sewards and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for mass transit in West Yorkshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Last week, I was delighted to have secured this debate, and the confirmation of its date came through just an hour before the news that the Government will indeed be investing £2.1 billion in West Yorkshire’s public transport, including more than £1 billion for a new tram in Leeds and Bradford, so I am now even happier to have secured it and to be leading it.

I will start with the background to that decision and explain why it is such a huge moment for my home city, Leeds, and for our home region of West Yorkshire. Leeds is currently the largest city in Europe without a mass transit system—that is such a well-known fact that if I had been given £1 every time I heard it, I could have personally financed the mass transit system 10 years ago, with spare change for a space programme—but transport aficionados and Members from my part of the world will know that that was not always the case. Leeds had a horse-drawn tram as early as 1871, and at its peak the network—which did not have horses by that time—had 476 trams and 124 miles of track. But while the horses did not leave us completely, the trams did. What had once been one of the largest urban transport systems in the UK was finally closed down, and in 1959 we saw the end of our tram system.

Leeds was often referred to as the “motorway city of the seventies”—I think that even appeared on a stamp—because we became entirely reliant on the car, which has held us back in some respects. There is only so much traffic that can be added to our roads before they have to be expanded, with new lanes added and traffic systems rethought—and often only for temporary benefit, before the next solution has to be considered. To their credit, policymakers and politicians figured that out—it is not something that we have just come to ourselves.

Trams can carry approximately four times as many passengers as a typical bus, and they massively increase the transport capacity of any region. They are versatile and can run alongside road networks where needed, because they can be segregated from traffic to avoid congestion and improve journey times for passengers. Trams are also very consistent. That is why politicians have tried multiple times, without success, to bring mass transit back to Leeds.

We have had everything: plans for trams; a trolleybus scheme; an elevated railway that was not dissimilar to the monorail in an episode of “The Simpsons”; and even, if we care to go back far enough, an underground proposal. That has left some people in my city highly sceptical of the announcement last week, because we have been burned too many times.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this welcome debate. I spoke to him earlier, and I know that this has been a passion of his since before he became an MP. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, and I am sure she will not let him down when she replies—no pressure, Minister! Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these transportation routes and hubs, which residents in London take for granted, take decades to build, but without sustained investment they are simply dreams? Does he also agree that Government and the Minister need to commit substantially to projects and give a small slice of the Budget to achieving them without onerous conditions?

[Mark Sewards]

I thank the hon. Member for his incredibly timely contribution—I could not agree more.

One reason that some residents of Leeds were sceptical last week was the repeated failures of previous Governments of different colours to deliver the transport improvements that we know we deserve. I am here to say that this time it is different. The money for the tram system has been committed and announced by the Government, in conjunction with the combined authority. The obstacles have been removed, and I will spend the rest of my time as the Member of Parliament for Leeds South West and Morley ensuring that the system is actually built.

The system will provide the boost that Leeds needs to compete with other major cities in the UK that already have their mass transit systems in place—but we have some things that they do not. As well as a newly promoted Premier League team, we can already boast the largest financial and professional service sectors outside London and the highest rate of growing businesses outside the capital, depending on how that rate is measured. The mass transit system will help us to supercharge these sectors, and more, once it is finally completed.

The funding provided by the Government allows for construction of phase 1 of this scheme—I will give just a bit of information on phase 1 for those who are not familiar with it. It provides two main tram lines. We have the Bradford line, which connects Leeds city centre to Bradford city centre, with an option to connect through Wortley too. I am very much advocating for that option, since Wortley is in my constituency—and not just because there would be a stop right next to my house.

The second line is the Leeds line, which has the potential to connect our hospitals, Leeds railway station, Elland Road stadium and the White Rose shopping centre to each other. I am also very excited about the White Rose stop, which is the confirmed stop for that line; although the rest of the stops are out for consultation, all lines finish at the White Rose. The shopping centre is in my constituency, and I spent much of my early life there, working there throughout my A-levels and university, so I know what it will mean for jobs in my constituency and what it will mean for the communities I represent if we are able to link them up under this unified transport system with the tram in the White Rose centre. It is a really important move for our region and for my constituency.

While I do not want to get too far ahead of myself, I am very hopeful for phase 2 of the plans. Phase 2 should connect more locations in our region directly to the network, allowing many more constituencies to feel the full benefits of a mass transit system on their doorstep. It is clearly important that not only Leeds and Bradford, but the whole of west Yorkshire should benefit from these plans.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire, I am determined to find solutions for growth in our region, and so is every member of the APPG. Mass transit is key to achieving that, and it has certainly been popular among residents and businesses in west Yorkshire. The combined authority spent a bit of time last year speaking with individuals and businesses across our region—5,000 in total. Two thirds of those they surveyed backed the Bradford line and three quarters backed the Leeds line—so mass transit is extremely welcome. The two lines will improve transport for nearly 675,000 people.

All this would not have been possible without the tireless work and commitment of Tracy Brabin, the Mayor of West Yorkshire. Tracy has been the strongest advocate for mass transit in our region ever since she took office. It formed a key part of her manifesto last year and now she is delivering on that promise. Her fierce desire to grow our local economy and to build infrastructure that benefits everyone in west Yorkshire is an inspiration. Her efforts mean that we can take advantage of devolution in full. The transport scheme is part of the local growth plan and will see the creation of about 33,000 new jobs, new homes and about £26 billion of extra growth in our region over the next decade.

I must also make a commitment to the Weaver network, because our brand-new franchised and integrated transport system is key to that network. It would be remiss of me not to state how pleased I am that all our buses are being brought back into public control under one banner from 2027 onwards. Although the tram will bring the huge benefits that I have already spoken about, our buses are just as important. In my constituency, the Ardsley and Robin Hood ward is very poorly served by the current bus arrangements. I will work with Tracy Brabin to change that, because, sadly, it is not just true for Ardsley and Robin Hood, but for many routes and networks across my constituency. The Weaver network will connect that franchise bus network with our trams and our train services, as well as linking up with active travel routes. It is the unified transport system that our region deserves.

Before I conclude, I thank all my colleagues who have contributed to the campaign to secure a tram network for west Yorkshire. I also thank my constituency neighbour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). Her support for this project has been consistent and it has been incredibly welcome.

We know that this investment is a vote of confidence in west Yorkshire. It is a vote of confidence from the Government; they know how much we have to offer and how much potential our region has. It is just the start of our plans to unlock our region’s potential.

I have some questions for the Minister to consider. Can the Government confirm that the funding provided to the combined authority will be flexible and will allow phase 1 to be built in full? How will they work with the combined authority to train and recruit the skilled workers needed to deliver this infrastructure? What is their latest assessment of the economic benefits that the project will bring to West Yorkshire? How do they envisage working alongside the combined authority to take advantage of the opportunities created by our mass transit system once it is completed? Are they as optimistic as I am that the case for any second phase of the project will be even stronger once the impacts from the first phase are felt? I will be very grateful if the Minister takes those questions into account when she delivers her closing remarks.

I put on the record my thanks and appreciation to all those who share our region’s ambition, and everyone who has supported this project. It gives me great pleasure to say that we will have spades in the ground for the tram in 2028, and that finally—finally—it is time for trams in West Yorkshire.