Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Monica Harding Excerpts(5 days, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
We have imposed a ban on arms sales for use in Gaza—we did that in September. I know that my hon. Friend’s constituents will care a lot about the war in Ukraine and other conflicts across the world, and therefore he will recognise the decision that we have made, particularly about the F-35 supply chain. The whole House will have heard his points on recognition.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I also pay tribute to the humanitarian workers in Gaza, who are risking their lives to help the Palestinian people. The very powerful words by our own UN humanitarian chief have already been referenced. He said that 14,000 babies need food within the next 48 hours or they will face starvation. He also said that we have not moved fast enough in the past in the face of other war crimes. Starvation is a weapon of war and it is against humanitarian law. The Secretary of State has said that he will not stand by and that, unless aid gets in, the Government will take consequential action—so how quickly will the Government take action to save the lives of those Palestinian babies?
Gavi and the Global Fund
Monica Harding Excerpts(1 week, 3 days 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
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) on securing this debate. This year, as both Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Global Fund conduct their funding replenishments, it is more important than ever that we consider the indispensable value of their work, both for Britain and the world. Since its inception at the beginning of the millennium, Gavi has immunised more than 1 million children and saved in the region of 20 million lives.
The UK was one of the alliance’s founders and has since constituted its largest single sovereign donor. In its short existence, the Global Fund has succeeded in driving down the death rates across AIDS, TB and malaria by 61%, saving 65 million lives. That is close to the entire population of this country and would not have been achieved without British support. That manifested most recently in a £1 billion pledge to the Global Fund’s seventh replenishment. That money is likely to avert around 1 million deaths. We have made so much progress, eliminating many diseases in some countries and reaching the edge of success in others.
However, the work of Gavi and the Global Fund is being placed at risk by short-sighted cuts to international development spending. President Trump has gutted USAID, shattered the fund that fights HIV and AIDS and is poised to eliminate much American funding for global immunisation efforts. Following that playbook, this Government have decided to slash British development spending to 0.3% of our GNI, its lowest level this century.
I, like many others, still remember the optimism of the last Labour Government, who pledged to make poverty history and funded Gavi and the Global Fund when they were created. This Government have rejected so much of the proud 1997 legacy, and they must not do so when it comes to global health. I hope that they put money behind their pledge to prioritise global health and vaccinations. There are so many strong and resonant moral arguments for Britain, but at the same time, the fight against disease serves concrete British interests.
The war against infection is currently facing an alignment of factors that make victory more challenging than ever. Climate change is amplifying disease risk. Higher temperatures are opening up regions to mosquitoes, and the incidence of dangerous weather conditions is on the rise. Pakistan’s catastrophic 2022 floods, for example, have since led to almost 7 million additional malaria cases. At the same time, the disturbing spread and intensification of conflict across the globe is impeding efforts to treat and prevent disease. Increasingly, civilian populations are being deliberately cut off from aid, while healthcare facilities are being not only disrupted, but targeted. Consequently, we are seeing the return of once-controlled diseases like polio and upticks in those like cholera, which emerge from degraded sanitary infrastructure.
Why does this matter for Britain? It is because, as we have heard, disease does not respect borders. Since covid, we are all only too aware that disease can reach our shores, putting both our NHS and our health security at risk. Resistance, particularly in strains of TB and malaria, is also an increasing threat. Both Gavi and the Global Fund are working on the development and deployment of new generations of TB vaccines, even in the face of these new headwinds. Existing interventions for fighting malaria are also seeing their efficacy decline in the face of insecticide and drug resistance. Better, sharper tools have been developed. The challenge now is getting them to where they are needed, and for that we need the Global Fund.
Iqbal Mohamed
Before I came to this place, I worked in the pharmaceutical industry in safety, efficacy and regulatory compliance. Does the hon. Member agree that the leadership role that the UK has played to date is not just limited to financial contributions and support, but has ensured that the vaccines that are rolled out in third world and low and middle-income countries are as safe as they can be?
Monica Harding
I absolutely agree, and I was about to come on to the economic benefits of Gavi and the Global Fund. There are economic benefits: a study of Gavi-supported countries showed that, through healthcare savings alone, each dollar spent returns $21. When wider social benefits are considered, that rises to $54. Accounting for trade opportunities, healthcare savings and other economic boosts for Britain, both Gavi and the Global Alliance have generated value equivalent to hundreds of billions of dollars. So we are talking about neither a charity nor a giant cash dispenser in the sky, but instead, a deposit account for the security, health and soft power of our nation.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On the point about soft power, China tends to deploy its vaccines in accordance with its regional influence and global standing, rather than on the basis of where there is the greatest need. Does she share my concern that the withdrawal of western funding from vaccine alliances could clear the way for China to engage in further vaccine diplomacy?
Monica Harding
I thank my hon. Friend for a well-made point. I have consistently said that cuts to our international aid and development spend create the space for rogue actors to move in, including China and Russia. I know that the Government like polling, so I am happy to share that the British people understand the value of spending on vaccination. Recent Adelphi polling found that 70% of our people believe that supporting global vaccine access benefits Britain.
This is about not only British funding, but British leadership. Our expertise and convening power have been continuous assets for Gavi and the Global Fund. I fear that the Government’s aid cuts have put that leadership at risk, so they must work to reverse that trend. This year, Britain will, along with South Africa, host the Global Fund’s replenishment efforts. As host nation, other countries and non-governmental organisations will look to us for leadership in making a significant pledge. I hope we will step up.
In closing, I want to say a little more about what Britain’s support means to others. I recently met Botswana’s Health Minister and the special ambassador of the African Leaders Malaria Alliance. They shared with me their pride on the progress made on AIDS—with related maternal mortality falling by 80%—and on how malaria is now on the threshold of elimination. They told me that Britain’s work in this success is “always felt very warmly,” that it “ties” the two peoples, and that it is ultimately an expression of “humanity.” They told me that the collaboration fuels trade and partnership. The Minister and the ambassador worry that so much progress and so much investment risks going into reverse in the wake of the global aid retrenchment, including by Britain. They do not expect global support to last forever, but wrenching it away before countries have fully built up their own capacity is a destructive mistake that they, and we, will pay for.
From the Liberal Democrat Benches, I encourage the Government to reaffirm our commitment and pledge generously to Gavi and the Global Fund. I encourage the Government to reaffirm our commitment and leadership in aid, and to reverse the savage cuts to our aid budget. This still-new Government must decide the Britain they want to deliver. Our wish is to bestride the world stage as a development superpower, consolidating our massive progress and gains, affirming our friendship, acting with compassion while delivering for our own people, providing security from conflict and disease, and controlling upstream migration to these shores. The space for leadership is now vacant, and I urge the Government to fill it.
Gaza: UK Assessment
Monica Harding Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Israel’s continuing blockade of Gaza, now exceeding 70 days, is utterly unacceptable. Will the Government now recognise that the blockade constitutes a clear violation of international law? The Government must respect whatever determination the ICJ reaches regarding genocide. There are already clear obligations on the Government to prevent genocide in Gaza arising from the ICJ’s January 2024 order. Have the Government taken any steps to meet those obligations? Will they commit today to banning the export of all UK arms to Israel? Will they reconsider sanctions on extremist Israeli Ministers like Bezalel Smotrich, who called for Gaza to be destroyed? Will the Government commit to the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state? As the UN’s British relief chief told the Security Council yesterday, if we have not done all we could to end the violence in Gaza, we should fear the judgment of future generations. Does the Minister agree?
Mr Falconer
These responsibilities weigh heavily on me and on every member of the Government and the Foreign Office team. But let us not forget what this Government have done. Whether it is restoring funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency; suspending arms exports in the way we have described; providing £129 million of humanitarian aid and then being one of the loudest voices in trying to ensure that it enters Gaza; or working with Jordan to fly medicines into Gaza, with Egypt to treat medically evacuated civilians, with Project Pure Hope to help Gazan children in the UK, and with Kuwait to support vulnerable children through UNICEF; we are taking steps. We take the judgments of the ICJ incredibly seriously, but I cannot pretend to the House that the events in the Occupied Palestinian Territories of recent days are acceptable, and we will continue to take every step we can to get a change of course.
Middle East Update
Monica Harding Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Israeli Government’s decision to approve plans for an expanded offensive, summarised by officials as the “conquest” of Gaza, is disgraceful. It will wreak more devastation and displacement on Palestinians after months of bombardment. It will also narrow the path back to a ceasefire, while severely harming the chances of getting the remaining hostages in Hamas’s captivity back to Israel alive. Does the Minister agree that if the Israeli Government carried out their threat to seize and hold Gaza, that would constitute a further flagrant breach of international law? In that instance, what would this Government’s response be?
The latest aid blockade of Gaza has now lasted for more than 60 days. The UN has described it as a “growing humanitarian catastrophe”. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s latest proposal to deliver aid through private companies at military hubs appears to contravene basic principles of international humanitarian law, including the neutrality of aid, and has been criticised by aid organisations as dangerous and unworkable.
The Israeli Government’s refusal to reopen aid routes is utterly unacceptable and contravenes their obligations as an occupying power. We welcomed the Government’s pledge of a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. However, without more action to secure the reopening of aid pathways, this new package will provide limited relief for Palestinians suffering in the strip. Can the Minister provide details on how the Government are working with international partners to pressure the Israeli Government to allow their aid to reach Gaza? Can he update the House on whether contingency measures are being considered to ensure that aid reaches those suffering in Gaza, even if the Israeli Government continue to block the direct supply of aid into the strip?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Lady asks a series of important questions. I sought in my statement to focus very clearly on what has been announced by the Israeli Government, including by Prime Minister Netanyahu on Sunday. I do not wish to be drawn into speculation about the various reports of how this operation may be conducted; I wish to stick only to the public announcements.
We have been clear all the way along in our commitment to a ceasefire and our desire to return to the framework of the ceasefire that was negotiated with such relief. We are in regular touch with Special Envoy Witkoff. We hope that through his efforts, he will be able to secure a return to a ceasefire. That would be far preferable on all the axes that the hon. Lady describes, whether that is the safe return of hostages, the desperate need for humanitarian aid to return to Gaza or, in our view, Israel’s security. She asks important questions about the role of an occupying power in the provision of aid. My officials set out our view on the legal position on Friday at the International Court of Justice.
Safety of Humanitarian Workers: Conflict Zones
Monica Harding Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days 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
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for securing this very important debate.
Our world is becoming more dangerous. Today, more than 120 conflict zones scar dozens of nations. The UN estimates that almost 90% of the resulting casualties are civilians, and the International Rescue Committee calculates that more than 300 million people are in need of humanitarian aid right now. That need is disproportionately concentrated in just a handful of countries. It is in those places, which are some of the world’s most dangerous—Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine, Myanmar and others—that humanitarian aid workers are most needed and most under threat.
The most dangerous year on record for aid workers was 2024, in which at least 325 lost their lives, the overwhelming majority of whom were national, rather than international, staff. We face a difficult confluence of proliferating conflict, even as we reduce funding for development, stability building and humanitarian response. Conflict is changing: fewer wars are being fought between states, and more are fought within states by various armed groups, particularly in urban areas. Efforts towards conflict prevention and peacebuilding are not working, and global tensions are rising. The UK holds an important position in upholding and calling out abuses of international humanitarian law, and in its responsibility to fund development and aid in conflict zones.
I regret that the Labour Government have made the deepest cuts to international aid this century—a shameful retreat from previous Labour Government’s legacy. It is shameful that the UK is not opposing but following the global trend of abandoning international solidarity, certainly when it comes to funding overseas development. I urge the Government to row back on their cuts to aid and stand steadfast as a global development leader.
Although development work needs money, it also requires the heavy lifting of diplomacy, not least to ensure adherence to international law, since aid workers today are facing increasing harm. Aid workers make personal sacrifices and place themselves in harm’s way to deliver lifesaving assistance. It is deeply worrying, therefore, to see a growing disregard for humanitarian workers—indeed, for humanitarian law—in conflicts around the world.
Last month, I took part in the International Development Committee’s trip to Geneva, where we met UN agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The IDC is investigating the protection of aid workers, and I look forward to the Minister receiving and reading our report. I was reassured by the ICRC that international humanitarian law is robust, strong and protective, and that there is no need for a renegotiation of the Geneva conventions, but I was concerned to hear that its implementation is becoming more and more problematic. The problem is not with the law but with non-compliance and attempts to undermine it. There must be more, and stronger, measures of accountability.
The Aid Worker Security Database counted 247 major attacks against aid workers in 2022, 281 in 2023, and 402 in 2024. Insecurity Insight has calculated that instances of drone-delivered explosives directed by named state forces towards aid or health programmes rose by a factor of 25 between 2022 and 2024. In written evidence to the International Development Committee, the organisation also testified that the expansion of violence in major conflict zones has coincided with rising attacks on humanitarian operations, particularly health facilities, camps for refugees and internally displaced people, and aid offices.
There have been far too many horrifying examples. Last year in Sudan, the ICRC lost two drivers to gunmen, and the World Food Programme lost three aid workers following aerial bombardment. Gaza has been by far the deadliest single location for aid workers, with over 212 losing their lives in the strip last year. The whole House was horrified at the end of March by Israel’s killing of 15 aid workers, as mentioned by many Members.
The UK must lead on efforts to stop all attacks on aid workers. The recent cancellation of the conference of the high contracting parties to the fourth Geneva convention due to “profound differences” only underscores the growing challenges for those committed to upholding international law. The Government have repeatedly said they are using their Security Council seat and bilateral relations to encourage aid access and aid-worker protection; will the Minister share what specific bilateral meetings the Government have had with state and non-state actors regarding the protection of aid workers in Gaza, Sudan, South Sudan, Ukraine and Myanmar? What specific steps are they taking to build international support in multilateral forums for protecting aid workers and strengthening the legal frameworks that bind the actions of combatants?
Accountability is critical, both for justice and for deterrence. The UK provides funding for the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court through ODA. Will the Minister confirm whether, once most of the cuts occur in 2026-27, the UK will maintain contributions to international courts, including non-assessed discretionary spending?
The UK needs to ask itself an important question: what does standing up for international humanitarian law look like? We must be prepared to roll up our sleeves and tell our friends and allies to adhere to international humanitarian law or face consequential action. Will the Minister outline what the UK is doing to ensure that there is accountability for all those who attack aid workers?
Most aid worker casualties are nationals, not international, but last year three Britons were killed when Israel struck World Central Kitchen workers in Gaza. This appalling incident highlighted the ongoing need both for accountability and for the protection of the brave people who do humanitarian work overseas, including our own nationals. What steps is the Minister taking to safeguard British aid workers in conflict zones, and those who are completing British projects? I welcome the Government joining partners and allies in September to form a ministerial group focused on enhancing the protection of humanitarian personnel and reversing the growing trend of attacks on them, and urge the Government to push forward with that engagement.
Even as aid workers are kidnapped, wounded and killed, aid itself is too often treated as just another instrument of war. We can see this in specific conflicts. Israel’s total blockade of all aid into Gaza, which has now been in place for more than 50 days, is deepening the already terrible suffering of Gazans. Yesterday, the ICJ opened hearings on precisely this point, and in the Chamber I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) to confirm that the Government will recognise the Court’s judgment, when it comes, on Israel’s responsibility under international law to facilitate aid to the people of Gaza. I did not receive a reply then, so will this Minister please reply today?
Another conflict characterised by the denial of aid access is the ongoing war in Sudan. This catastrophe—the world’s largest—has left 25 million people in need of food aid. Throughout, all sides have blocked humanitarian assistance to civilians.
Changes to warfare are having a profound impact on aid-worker safety. The more permissive environment regarding international humanitarian law threatens medical personnel and infrastructure, which are being targeted. Technological changes to warfare—particularly the use of drones and the rising prevalence of aerial bombardment—are increasing the peril faced by aid workers. Around 60% of aid-worker deaths in Gaza last year were attributable to aerial bombardment. How are the Government’s efforts to safeguard aid workers and uphold international humanitarian law taking account of these specific dangers? How is the UK ensuring that accountability frameworks cover the use of drones and related tactics, such as double-tap strikes?
There is a false belief that democracies will automatically act ethically in war, but the current permissive nature in respect of adherence to IHL has shown that this is not the case. As defence investment increases, there is a need to train armed forces. The UK leads in that regard, so how can it share best practice to ensure that IHL is upheld in conflict zones?
The UK has a leading role to play in diplomatic efforts to ensure the protection of aid workers through upholding international humanitarian law, and I urge the Government to do so with the vigour we would expect from a leadership so experienced in that. But that must be in concert with playing a leadership role in international development, including the funding of deconfliction and the stabilisation of nations. The cuts to UK aid will only exacerbate conflict. I urge the Government to reconsider the cuts, return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA, and continue a proud UK legacy. Now, in this deadliest year, it is not the time to row back.
Kashmir: Increasing Tension
Monica Harding Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I associate myself with the comments that have already made, reflecting on the grief of the communities torn apart last week. Tuesday’s horrific murders were utterly devastating, and those responsible must face the full weight of the law. The escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan is alarming, as are reports of incidents of fire being exchanged by soldiers at the border, and it threatens to destabilise the entire region. It is vital that leaders in both countries commit to an open dialogue and wider efforts to de-escalate. We hope that that includes India committing to reinstate the Indus waters treaty, the suspension of which threatens water access for Pakistanis, and Pakistan reopening its airspace to Indian-owned airlines.
The UK must engage with both Governments and encourage a return to dialogue and a retreat from retaliatory action to ensure that decisions taken in the wake of Tuesday’s horrific attack do not endanger more lives. Can the Minister confirm what conversations he has had with officials in New Delhi on reinstating the Indus waters treaty and with officials in Islamabad on reopening its airspace?
Mr Falconer
It is vital that effective channels of engagement to safeguard stability in the region exist, and we are encouraging both parties to that effect. There has been a lot of speculation about the diplomatic measures that have been announced so far. As we understand it, international agreements have been put in abeyance, rather than being rescinded. In the long term, the proper functioning of water management in the Indus water catchment area is vital for both sides of the line.
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit
Monica Harding Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I was glad to see the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary meet the Palestinian Authority’s Prime Minister Mustafa and reaffirm this country’s support for a two-state solution. A Palestinian state as part of a wider two-state solution remains the only path to long-term peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Liberal Democrats have called for the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine. I ask the Minister this question most weeks and will ask it again, and I hope the position will change one week: following yesterday’s meeting, will the Government now take this vital step and commit to working with international partners such as France on issuing a joint recognition statement?
Now is the time for a restoration of the ceasefire, the release of the hostages and a return to the political process. This Government have pledged a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including for humanitarian relief. That is welcome, yet for more than 50 days Israel has blocked aid from entering Gaza and shuttered border crossing points. As a result, the food stocks of the UN World Food Programme, which previously reached half of Gaza’s population, have entirely run out. The risk of starvation, disease and death is very real, even as 116,000 tonnes of food aid languishes at border checkpoints. In a joint statement with French and German counterparts, the Foreign Secretary called this “intolerable”, and rightly so, but what are the Government doing to end the blockade and ensure that aid can flow into Gaza?
The International Court of Justice has opened hearings on Israel’s responsibility to facilitate humanitarian relief in Gaza. Will the Government commit to abiding by the court’s judgment? Two weeks ago, the Government said that they continue to consider the ICJ’s opinion on the OPTs. Can the Minister update the House on when we can finally expect the Government’s response?
The Government have also reaffirmed their condemnation of violent west bank settler activity, but what concrete steps are being taken to pressure Israel to act on illegal settlements? Finally, will the Government now consider sanctions on those Israeli Ministers, such as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, who encourage settler violence?
Mr Falconer
I have set out the position on recognition in a previous answer, and I am afraid that I will have to test the hon. Lady’s patience because on sanctions I will also set out the position, which is very familiar: we do not comment on sanctions in advance, as to do so might impact their effectiveness. I can confirm, however, that we have raised these issues, including the blockade of aid. As she has identified, we issued a statement with our European partners last week, and the Foreign Secretary raised this with his counterpart on 15 April.
London Sudan Conference
Monica Harding Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Sudan conference in London presented an opportunity to generate international consensus for a path to peace in Sudan’s civil war, the world’s largest conflict. It was deeply disappointing that the conference failed to establish a contact group for the conflict, as such a group could build international political will to move towards an end to the fighting. Will the Minister therefore outline what new diplomatic initiatives he will pursue to establish a contact group?
I welcome the announcement of £120 million more for humanitarian aid, but with aid access being wielded as a weapon of war on both sides, can the Minister assure us that it will reach civilians?
Gender-based violence is a terrible feature of the war, so what steps can be taken to protect women and children? I am also deeply concerned by reports that other nations are supplying arms to the warring factions, particularly the reports that the United Arab Emirates have provided weapons to the Rapid Support Forces, which are alleged to have committed mass civilian killings and are accused by the US of genocide in Darfur. Will the Minister outline what steps he has taken to stop the flow of arms to ensure that British exports are not used in Sudan?
Mr Falconer
The shadow Foreign Secretary also raised those questions. I am happy to write to the House with further details about aid delivery, both in relation to the £120 million in further funding and the concerning reports over recent days about restrictions in aid access, particularly in Darfur. Once the situation becomes clearer, I am happy to provide a full update to all parties on the practical questions about aid delivery.
The hon. Lady asks about the practical successes of the conference and what is next on the diplomatic front. The statement from the co-chairs, which include not just the UK, but the African Union, the EU and others, attempted to capture what was an important and frank set of discussions over the course of the day, and set out five principles. It went further than any other recent statement, calling for a ceasefire, rejecting external interference, opposing parallel governance and supporting a transition to civilian-led Governments. My Foreign Office officials have been talking to all parties with an interest in Sudan, including the two belligerents, to make it clear that the statement is the strong view of the international community and that we expect to see it put in place.
It is true, as the two most recent questions have set out, that we were not able to secure a contact group at the conference. I would not want the House to think that, as frank and behind closed doors as it was, the conference was therefore a failure. The fact that this is difficult is all the more reason why it was important for the UK to show leadership and to bring the African Union and others to the table to discuss these issues.
Persecution of Christians
Monica Harding Excerpts(1 month, 2 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
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this debate, which is as important as it is timely—I am pleased to be speaking today as we break for the Easter recess.
The right to practise one’s faith freely, without hindrance or discrimination, is fundamental. The Liberal Democrats have a proud history of liberal universalism. We believe that all people should be able to live their life free from fear, including fear of religious intolerance; that human rights are applicable everywhere; and that the universal declaration of human rights, which enshrines the freedoms of thought, conscience, faith and religious practice, has the same resonance now as it did when it was enshrined almost 80 years ago.
It is distressing, therefore, to see Christians across the world persecuted and, worse still, to know that for many the situation is deteriorating. Today, at least 318 million Christians live lives subject to high levels of persecution and discrimination—an increase of 12% on 2021. Moreover, the number of countries that Open Doors considers to be conducting extreme or very high levels of persecution against Christians tripled in the past decade from 23 nations to 60.
It is no coincidence that those statistics rise in parallel to increasing levels of conflict and instability around the world. Four of the top five nations in which Open Doors judges that the most extreme persecution of Christians takes place—Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Sudan—have suffered particularly acute civil strife and are highly fragile. When nations collapse into violence, it is often minority groups, whether ethnic or religious, who suffer first and most. Sudan, where the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophe is taking place and where more than 25 million people are in need of food support, is home to more than 2 million Christians who have been swept up in the brutal conflict. More than 150 churches have been destroyed—some deliberately targeted—and there are accounts of Christian leaders who have been murdered.
Sir John Hayes
Of course that is true, but it is not the whole story because the persecution of Christians predates much of that. For example, in the middle east, the Ottoman empire gave licence for persecution on exactly the grounds I described: aggressive Islamism perpetuated by the Ottomans led to the persecution of Christians, particularly in Palestine, Bethlehem and similar places. Conflict matters, but it is not all that matters.
Monica Harding
In conflict, religious and ethnic minorities are persecuted.
British investment, through international development spending, peacebuilding and deconfliction, reduces the risk of religious intolerance. I am deeply concerned that, as with so many vital areas encompassed by official development assistance, British efforts to safeguard freedom of religion or belief will suffer because of the Government’s decision to slash development spending to the lowest level this century. Previous aid cuts fell hard on programmes focused on those issues. When ODA was reduced from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5% in 2021, the Institute of Development Studies found that some programmes protecting freedom of religion in south Asia saw their budgets plunge by 50%.
The burdens are borne most of all by women and girls, who disproportionately face the horrors of religious intolerance whenever it appears. As evidence given by the APPG to the International Development Committee in 2021 attests, religious intolerance often goes hand in hand with the repression of women and girls. We tend to see that most clearly when it results in girls losing access to education. That deprivation is most acute when applied to women from religious minorities, for whom, as the APPG said,
“their gender acts as a further marginalising layer of identity”.
Freedom of belief and gender equality are both cherished objectives of the Government’s development policy, yet cuts to aid spending will result in setbacks on both fronts.
I am also disturbed by the growing trend of authoritarian states using the digital weapons at their disposal to control and repress minority religious populations, including Christians. We see that in China, a country home to almost 70 million Christians—the single largest Christian minority population anywhere in the world—which has taken to deploying surveillance cameras inside and outside houses of worship capable of identifying believers. China also uses biometric data as a tool to monitor and therefore control faith groups. It is particularly concerning that the extent of that repression, and the potential for it to become still greater, has increased in tandem with technological development, and I urge the Government to monitor that closely.
Britain must play a role in safeguarding religious minorities and Christian communities across the world. In the past, the UK has helped to play a convening role, bringing together Governments, non-governmental organisations and civil society organisations—for instance, through the declaration of humanity, which opposes religious interpretations that are used to justify conflict-related sexual violence and other crimes.
As the UK makes the moral and strategic error of cutting development spending, it is critical that we do all we can to preserve our diplomatic capabilities. I am glad that the Prime Minister has appointed a special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, and I welcome the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) to his role. However, to be maximally effective, that role must have dedicated support from within the FCDO, so can the Minister share what FCDO resources are available to support the work of the envoy? In view of the darkening situation for Christians around the world, is the Minister willing to reassess the Government’s decision not to legislate in this Session to put the envoy on a statutory footing?
Persecution based on faith should have no place in today’s world. The worsening global outlook for tolerance is an indictment of increasing levels of violence, conflict and extremism, and it is an invitation to redouble our efforts, through diplomacy and development, to protect religious minorities—Christians and others. This is the worst time for the Government to make such deep cuts to our international aid budget, which supports projects that protect religious minorities. I urge the Government to row back on those plans; to return to the challenge of carrying the beacon for human rights, including Christian rights, in these most deadly times; and to match today’s rhetoric with action.
Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians
Monica Harding Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the Minister for providing advance sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support his rebuke of the Israeli Government for detaining two hon. Members of this House and denying their entry into the state of Israel. I am disappointed, however, that this House has not been able to speak with one voice on this matter.
I was shocked by the leader of the Conservative party’s comments yesterday morning, and I am deeply disappointed by the shadow Minister’s comments today. The Liberal Democrats believe that Members should be free to advocate without fear or favour on issues of national and global importance. We believe it is vital for parliamentarians to be able to see for themselves the realities of the situations we discuss in this Chamber.
Israel’s actions are inconsistent with the behaviour we would expect from an ally and from a democracy, and it is regrettable that the leader of the Conservative party and the party spokesperson do not agree. Transparency in the middle east is vital for securing a long-lasting political settlement, which must be based on openness and trust. Has the Foreign Secretary since made clear to his counterpart in the Israeli Government that such treatment of parliamentarians is unacceptable, and that no further parliamentarians will be treated in that way or denied entry into Israel?
Will the Foreign Secretary also raise with his counterpart this morning’s deeply disturbing reports of Palestinian detainees being subjected to torture, and this weekend’s report that the initial IDF account of the deaths of 15 aid workers at the hands of Israeli forces has been contradicted by video footage from a victim’s mobile phone?
Mr Falconer
I confirm to the hon. Member that the Israeli Government are in no doubt about our views on this incident, and that discussions continue. She references a number of concerning reports that have emerged in recent days. I was in this House last Wednesday to discuss some of those in detail, as well as the wider position in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and I am sure we will continue to have such discussions about what remains a deeply concerning situation.