Recognition of Western Sahara as Moroccan

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Kawczynski]

As the hon. Lady will know, a key strand that runs through the whole concept of emotional intelligence is interdependence. That is a word that keeps coming back when one studies the concept of emotional intelligence. During the course of this debate, I intend to highlight our interdependence with the Kingdom of Morocco. Out of the 22, this is arguably the best Arab country to engage with. It has the most progressive society and one, most importantly, that shares our values. It is a reliable strategic partner, which pursues all the attributes of a modern democracy. We can and must build strong commercial, political and security links with this nation.

But we are in the process of jeopardising our potential with Rabat and falling behind our competitors—the United States of America, Germany, Spain and others—as a result of our refusal to understand from an emotionally intelligent perspective the huge importance that Morocco attaches to this issue. In the first part of my speech, I will examine why I feel so strongly about Morocco.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

No, I will not give way at the moment; I am going to talk about women’s rights, religious rights and the rule of law—protection for citizens under the constitution.

When I visited Morocco, I saw at first hand its extraordinary protection of religious minorities. I have been visiting the country for many years, and I have seen a multi-faith, multicultural, inclusive society. I have visited many mosques, synagogues and churches during my visits. John Paul II visited Morocco in August 1985, when he was hosted by King Hassan; that was the Polish Pope’s first visit to any Muslim nation. Pope Francis visited in 2019, and during that visit he praised King Mohammed VI’s interfaith dialogue. I pay tribute to His Majesty Mohammed VI for his leadership and vision, and the way he pursues interfaith dialogue throughout his whole nation. It is not just interfaith dialogue among Jews, Christians and Muslims in Morocco; even more importantly, King Mohammed VI does important work in sub-Saharan Africa, supporting the nations bordering Morocco in trying to deal with the ethnic and religious tensions that have so blighted sub-Saharan Africa and caused so much instability in the region.

During the second world war, Mohammed V was pressurised by Vichy France and Nazi Germany to expel all the Jews from Morocco. I know there are hon. Members of this House with family links to Morocco. Mohammed V came under huge pressure by Vichy to do what some European countries did: shepherd their Jewish population into the clutches of the Vichy regime or Germany. Ultimately, we all know what happened to those Jewish people who were sent to Auschwitz.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I am very aware, through our discussions, of the hon. Gentleman’s family connections with Tangier. I pay tribute to him and his ancestors and relatives, who played such a critical role in Morocco at a particularly difficult time.

Mohammed V, in response to Vichy and Adolf Hitler, said, “There are no Jews. There are no Muslims. There are only Moroccans.” He refused to comply with the diktat of Pétain and Hitler and did not cave in to those demands. I think that is testimony to the way in which the royal family of the Kingdom of Morocco protects all religious minorities. I heard from one journalist that the late Yitzhak Rabin, the former Israeli Prime Minister, said that when he had difficulties with the Moroccan Jewish population, he sought the advice and support of the late King Hassan, who had such close links with that diaspora in his own kingdom.

Secondly, I want to talk about women’s rights. During my many visits to Morocco I have met women who are far more empowered in Morocco than in many other Arab nations. Having met many female journalists, civil engineers, women who work in construction, female politicians and female diplomats, one gets the impression that Morocco, out of all of the Arab League members, understands and recognises that it will become a true modern society only if women are empowered and supported, not only through the education system but by being able to reach the very top of all sectors in society and the economy, including those that have historically been dominated by males.

Finally, I turn to democracy. On my many visits to Morocco I have witnessed and experienced what I perceive to be a greater freedom of the press than I have come across in any other Arab nation. There is greater protection of citizens under the constitution, a genuine Parliament, a genuine system of checks and balances, and genuine power of the opposition. Having spoken to many opposition MPs in Morocco, one gets the sense that it is a genuine thriving democracy where the rule of law is protected and people can debate and challenge one another in the most robust way without fear of retribution.

The key issue facing Britain today is the growing spread of the malign Iranian influence across the middle east and north Africa. That evil, despotic regime, which came about after the fall of the Shah in 1979, with the mullahs that control Iran—I visited Tehran when I was on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee—is one of the most dangerous, violent, authoritarian regimes in the region. It suppresses and abuses its own people and throws gay people off buildings. It is a very dangerous country and its malign influence is spreading across the region.

I will briefly mention the allegations of Iranian influence in the disturbances and difficulties that Bahrain faced in 2011. Iran filled the void in Iraq, which Mr Blair helped to create in the second invasion of Iraq, and its malign influence is growing there. Our miscalculations over Syria have given the Iranians the ability to enter the country. It supports Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Its influence is extending to north Africa, Libya and Algeria through its support of the Polisario movement.

In contrast, Morocco is a thriving democracy. When I went to Morocco, I saw the massive effort to stem the flow of illegal migration to Europe. I met many officials and heard how they have managed to prevent over 300,000 illegal crossings into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta and the Canary Islands. Bearing in mind how we are getting increasingly agitated and frustrated about the illegal migration operating in the English channel, we have to pay tribute to the extraordinary support and vision that Morocco has in policing its own borders and making sure that illegal migration does not end up in Europe and ultimately through Europe to the United Kingdom.

With the restrictions in the Red sea and ultimately the Suez canal as a result of the conduct of the Houthi rebels, the waterway around the Moroccan coastline will be even more important for our security and defence capability.

There are of course huge commercial opportunities. Between 700,000 and 1 million British tourists visit Morocco every year. We also have a company, Xlinks—its chief executive officer is Sir Dave Lewis—that seeks to export green energy by funnelling solar and wind power from Morocco through an undersea cable to Britain. That aspiration could ultimately lead to 8% of British energy requirements being provided by Morocco through green energy.

Earlier this year I visited Western Sahara, including Laayoune and Dakhla, with General Sir Simon Mayall. We spent a week together in Dakhla and the wider area. The highlight of our visit was our meeting the Foreign Minister of Morocco, Nasser Bourita, with whom we spent an hour and a half. Instinctively, when we started to talk to him, although, of course, I am not going to reveal the intricate discussions we had—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) wish to say something?

[Patrick Grady]

The hon. Gentleman does not need to go into the details, because we can read them in the press release that the Moroccan Government released after his meeting with the Foreign Minister, which I have just found online. I am not sure whether I caught what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech; his trip was paid for by the Moroccan embassy to the United Kingdom, was it not? And it is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, is it not?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Yes. That is why I just stated that I visited the Kingdom of Morocco on an official visit, and that is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. That is correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

What I am saying is that international law should come first, so the decision by Donald Trump, when he was President of the United States, to recognise Moroccan occupation, which few other countries have done, is a backward step for international law. It will obviously make a lot of people—particularly Sahrawi people—extremely angry, because they see in it no right of representation for themselves.

My argument is that the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion was in terms of a process of decolonisation. The issue has been taken to the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation in New York, and I was there myself on that occasion, speaking about exactly this issue. Surely, the position we should adopt as a member of the United Nations and the Security Council is to support the General Assembly decision, the Security Council’s continued appointment of MINURSO, and the Secretary-General’s appointee to try to bring about a process for the future.

The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham seems to be using the Morocco’s huge economic advances as a reason for overriding international law in respect of Western Sahara. I respectfully say to him that the two things are not connected. Morocco’s trade with Europe, its developing solar economy, the proposal for building an underground train tunnel to Spain and all those sorts of things are great and very welcome—many things in Morocco are extremely welcome and very good—but that does not take away the fundamental point that the occupation of Western Sahara on the departure of Spain remains illegal, and we should not be trading in goods produced in illegally occupied territories. That argument goes on all around the world.

What I hope comes out of this debate is a statement by our Government that we will continue to respect international law, engage with Morocco and Polisario and engage assertively with the United Nations to ensure that this long-running conflict can be brought to a conclusion by giving the Sahrawi people a fundamental right to decide their own future. That right can be supressed and wished away, but the desire for recognition and self-determination of the Sahrawi people, as with peoples all around the world, will not go away.

[Patrick Grady]

The right hon. Gentleman is making very positive points. Is he aware that, on 7 December 2022, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) secured a debate in Westminster Hall in which he called for the Chagos islanders to be given a referendum so that they could exercise their right to self-determination over their future autonomy?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I have listened to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham speak on many occasions in the Chagos islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party parliamentary group about the need for the Chagossian people to have a right to decide their own future. That issue is not for debate today but, in law, the Chagos islands are part of Mauritius that is decolonisation law that has been enacted. Let us be consistent about this issue and ensure that we, as a Parliament representing a country that was one of the founding members of the United Nations and that set up many of these international institutions, stand by them and abide by them, and give the Sahrawi people the chance to decide their own future.

The camps in Algeria have been there for a very long time. I have visited those camps on three occasions, and I have met many people there who are sad that they have been driven out of their own homes and cannot return. They are doing their best to make a life there, but people stuck in a refugee camp for decades and decades—generations of them—get very angry. Look at the Palestinian people in refugee camps in countries around Israel; they get very angry. The way to deal with their anger is to look at the issue of the justice that has been denied.

It is in the interests of Morrocco to ensure that there is a proper settlement and not to allow the commercial interests of phosphate mining, the agricultural sector or those who wish to occupy Western Sahara at the expense of the Sahrawi people to take centre stage in policymaking, when our policymaking should be decided by the issues of decolonisation and law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing the debate. I am not the most proficient user of the Hansard search facility, but the results it has shown me suggest that it is nearly eight years since he last had cause to speak about either Morocco or Western Sahara on the parliamentary record, and I could not find any parliamentary questions that he had tabled about the Government’s relationship with those countries or their position on issues affecting them before November last year, but happily he has come to speak about the experiences he has recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The hon. Member is right that it is not uncommon for Members to lead or contribute to debates on issues affecting other countries when they have returned from visits. I have done so myself for Malawi and Colombia, but I think my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests will show that the organisations that supported those visits were charitable organisations working for the advancement of human rights, rather than the Governments of those countries pursuing their own national interests.

Whatever the motivation, this has been a useful opportunity to reflect on the situation in what is sometimes referred to as the last colony in Africa. As the turnout demonstrates, a number of Members take an interest in the area. I know that the chair of the Western Sahara all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), regrets that duties in Committee prevent him from taking part today.

We have heard about some of the historical background—in fact, we have had a first-hand account of some of it from the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Many parts of Africa continue to experience hangovers from the colonial era, although they are not manifested as physically as the berm, which runs across Western Sahara and demarcates the areas administered by Morocco and those controlled by Polisario.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Member will be aware, I am sure, that the African Union has always taken the position that Western Sahara is an issue of decolonisation, and it was on that basis that Morocco left the African Union.

[Patrick Grady]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is a long-standing issue that continues to be unresolved and has, to some extent, been frozen. At least in some respect, this debate is welcome, because it perhaps helps to move the wider debate along, but the obligations on Morocco and the other countries that are party to all this date to the Geneva conventions and that postcolonial legacy.

More recently, the Security Council has continued to adopt resolutions, and last year it called for a resumption of negotiations and movement towards

“a just, lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution…which will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.”

That is very important because, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, a failure to settle these disputes can lead only to more suffering, grievance, frustration, regional political and military tensions and conflict, and a spiral thereafter.

It is clear that, whether the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham and the Government who paid for his visit like it or not, Morocco is an occupying power in Western Sahara, which means it has obligations under the Geneva conventions to foster an environment that sustains human rights for all Sahrawi people, regardless of their political persuasion. That right to self-determination is fundamental. The Sahrawis are a distinct population group with their own heritage and history, and they deserve equal rights to peacefully determine their own future, as would any other similar people. Of course, the Scottish National party has a proud tradition of advocating self-determination. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham has himself used the opportunity in Westminster Hall to argue for the right of self-determination for the people of the Chagos islands, and that they should be allowed to determine their future in a referendum.

Various different solutions have been proposed. The autonomy plan published by Morocco in 2007 has been seen in some quarters as the basis for a way forward, but a settlement under the auspices of the United Nations and its representatives would surely have more success and legitimacy, particularly as, ultimately, any solution needs to be endorsed in a referendum.

At a bare minimum, international standards suggest that an autonomous region must have a locally elected Government that cannot be abolished by the central state, so an autonomous Western Sahara would have to be free to manage its own affairs without interference from the Moroccan state. Proposals for a system where the Executive of such a body were appointed by and responsible to the King of Morocco would not meet that standard.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the effects of the lack of autonomous self-governance in Western Sahara is that, despite being one of the most climate-stressed places in the world, it cannot access international climate finance. Some 200,000 Sahrawis have been driven into the interior of the desert, which is basically unliveable, and even more are in Algeria, in refugee camps that are constantly flooded and in completely unliveable conditions, such as in tents in the summer. Should not the Western Saharan—Sahrawi—Government be able to access that international climate finance and become part of the international community, as they have a climate-adaptation plan?

[Patrick Grady]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and climate change is causing displacement around the world. Indeed, if the UK Government do not want people to make their way here by irregular means, then it is in their interests to help people who are displaced and oppressed to tackle the climate crisis and be able to live fulfilling lives in their countries of origin—and to ensure that that happens through peaceful, democratically legitimate ways.

In some respects, it is remarkable that the UK Government have not simply followed the United States in recognising Morocco’s claim to sovereignty, and presumably the Minister will not be announcing a change to that policy in response to today’s debate. That clearly does disappoint some Members on the Conservative Back Benches. There are some Conservative Members who give the impression that they would happily outsource the UK’s entire foreign and defence policies to the United States, irrespective of who makes up the Government of the USA at any given time, just as, at the same time, they would happily withdraw from the global conventions, treaties and charters that have maintained stability and defended human rights for the past 80 years or so.

I appreciate that that sometimes makes it difficult for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers to call for the observation of international law and respect for the decisions of the global bodies that uphold and interpret that law, while many of their colleagues in other Departments are running around insulting international tribunals and dismissing them as foreign courts that the UK does not need to heed. Indeed, sometimes, the FCDO itself decides that it does not like the findings of such tribunals, such as the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the status of the Chagos islands. All that said, in this instance, the UK is wise to support the UN Security Council’s resolutions relating to Morocco and Western Sahara, and the calls for self-determination and for freedom of expression and association in Western Sahara.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

The hon. Gentleman is repeatedly referring to the United Nations and other organisations. Bearing in mind that there are about 195 countries in the world, will he recognise that more than 100 countries affiliated with United Nations recognise and support the Moroccan autonomy plans for Western Sahara? Does he recognise that figure at least?

[Patrick Grady]

The hon. Gentleman made that point in his contribution, but I think that the point is that the people of Western Sahara—the Sahrawi people—have to endorse whatever the ultimate autonomy arrangement is, so the UK Government are right to use not just the opinions of countries that are members of the United Nations and expressing their views, but the processes of the United Nations to reach determined conclusions. They also have to back up those words with action and, in particular, they need to be careful about the consequences of trade or other commercial arrangements that they enter into, or which they allow others to enter into. They will be aware of the decisions by the European Court of Justice to annul trade deals between the EU and Morocco that did not have consent from people in Western Sahara.

The Minister will have seen my recent written parliamentary questions, not least about the UK-Morocco strategic framework for co-operation on climate action, clean energy and green growth. It is important that that framework, and any other bilateral agreements, do not infringe the rights to self-determination of people in Western Sahara, or are seen tacitly or otherwise to endorse any unilateral claim or declaration of sovereignty made by Morocco. The UK Government’s position must be for a peaceful, democratic and negotiated settlement, agreed in a referendum. That could be a form of autonomy, or it could be full independence, which would by definition include obligations on any new nation state in Western Sahara to abide by the highest standards of democracy and peaceful international relations. Many of us in the SNP often say that independence is defined by our interdependence, a word that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham used—our peaceful coexistence and co-operation with other countries on the global stage, respecting the framework of the rules-based international order.

At the end of the day, it must be for the people there to decide, as has been said. It is not for the Government of Morocco or the United Kingdom Government—and certainly not in the commercial or economic interests of any individual Government, mining company or multi- national conglomerate—to determine future sovereignty. As we often say in the SNP, that must lie with the people. That is the principle that the UK Government should seek to uphold, even perhaps against their instincts and their interests, not just in Western Sahara but around the world.

War in Gaza

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

At a recent event in Glasgow, I heard the parish priest of Gaza describe the situation as almost like hell on earth. If an individual were to escape that hell in Gaza and make their way to the UK by irregular means, because there is no humanitarian visa and no safe and legal route, is it the Government’s position that such a person should be deported to Rwanda?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman asks me a hypothetical question. When he comes up with a specific case where there is a need for a response, I will of course give it to him.

Security in the Western Balkans

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this incredibly valuable debate, and on her commitment to ensuring stability and security in the western Balkans, not just in her time in this place but throughout her professional career. The other incredibly valuable contributions we have heard all speak to Members’ own personal expertise and experience, and demonstrate why the Backbench Business Committee was right to grant time in the Chamber for this important debate. Many of my hon. Friends have worked closely with the hon. Lady and the Foreign Affairs Committee, and in some of the parliamentary assemblies that were mentioned, on these issues over the years.

The security and stability of the western Balkans affects the security and stability of the wider region, especially here in Europe. As we have heard, conflicts and disputes in the different countries often act as proxies or plays for influence by other actors on the global stage. Sadly, much of that is not new. Anyone who has studied basic high-school history will know that the roots of the first world war are often traced to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on the streets of Sarajevo in June 1914, just short of 110 years ago. For the many reasons we have discussed, the region continues to this day to be seen as something of a tinderbox or powder keg, or even a shaken but unopened bottle of fizzy lemonade.

Much progress was made, especially with the establishment of the Dayton accords in 1995, but those structures have not been without challenge or strain over the years, and there are increasing challenges to the status quo, as we have heard throughout the debate. The increasingly assertive stance of Milorad Dodik within Republika Srpska threatens the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the motion suggests, and tensions remain high between Serbia and Kosovo after cross-border violence. The Ohrid agreement between those countries is welcome, but it must be followed up with practical action.

The roots of the instability, and political instability in particular, run deep. That in turn has significant consequences across the region, including ubiquitous corruption, inter-ethnic tension, strong organised crime, autocratic tendencies and limited human rights. The powerful speeches about freedom of religion or belief are testament to that. Organised crime in particular remains a challenge, and drug and weapons trafficking, illegal immigration, money laundering, contraband or terrorist acts all add to the sense of instability and insecurity. These factors explain and sometimes compound the opportunities for external influence and exploitation by bad faith actors.

The hon. Lady’s motion refers to Russia, and the SNP joins her in her condemnation of Russian attempts to amplify tensions in the region for its own gain. Putin clearly sees the western Balkans as central to his arguments for the return of multipolarity in world affairs, in opposition to what he sees as a US-dominated unipolar order. For example, by blocking UN recognition of Kosovo’s independence, Moscow tries to position itself as a defender of Serbian territorial integrity, which boosts Russia’s popularity among Serbs and puts pressure on Belgrade to maintain friendly relations with Moscow. As we have heard repeatedly in the debate, Russia continues to back Bosnian Serb antagonists both officially through Republika Srpska and informally through myriad cultural, religious, educational and paramilitary groups.

At the same time, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has seen the western Balkan countries emerge essentially as a new frontline in Russia’s geopolitical confrontation with the west. Russia has used the media and information sphere, stepped up its political influence and mobilised proxy organisations to project its narratives, protect its interests and slow the region’s integration into western institutions. However, integration continues to provide something of a counterbalance. Progress continues to be made towards that integration, in particular the prospect of accession to the European Union and, perhaps for some countries, eventually to NATO. Those are the institutions that have promoted peace, security and economic development among their member countries and international partners for decades, since the end of the second world war.

Countries that wish to join the EU should largely be supported and encouraged to do so, and at least to start making progress towards the different membership criteria that would allow them to pursue membership in future. That has not necessarily been the case for the UK Government’s attitude towards the European Union. There is some irony in promoting and encouraging expansion in one direction, while dealing with the consequences of Brexit in the other.

[Alicia Kearns]

I think that is a deeply cynical and unfair point to make. The people of Bosnia and Kosovo want to join the EU, and therefore it is right we support them in their ambitions. We are not saying we think they should join because we think it is right; we are saying that, if that is what they want—if that is their determination—we will support them in that journey because it is right for them. The hon. Gentleman’s point is deeply unfair. If I am honest, it brings domestic politics into a debate that so far has rightly focused on the Balkans and their people, rather than lowering down to domestic politics. It is disappointing to make that point today.

[Patrick Grady]

I take the hon. Lady’s point, and I am not trying to upset much of the consensus we have heard today, but there have been consequences. A message was sent by the United Kingdom when it decided that the European Union was not for it. Many of us during that debate—we do not need to rehearse it just now—warned that that was a potential consequence of the UK’s decision to leave. I will not go any further on that, and I want to agree with the points that have been made.

There is an important role for the UK to continue to play, as the hon. Lady’s motion notes, particularly by increasing engagement with international allies and regional partners. Indeed, the counterpart to her Committee in the House of Lords made a number of important recommendations in a recent letter to the Foreign Secretary, all of which the SNP would welcome being taken forward.

Those recommendations include: actions by the leaderships of Serbia and Kosovo to implement the Brussels and Ohrid agreements; supporting the high representative in efforts to tackle secessionist activity by Republika Srpska; re-evaluating the possibility of rejoining Operation Althea, the EU-led peacekeeping mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina; the provision of funding for a BBC Albanian service; the use of longer-term funding instruments to support development in the region; more activity to promote economic growth and combat corruption; continued participation in the Quint; and continued collaboration with EU and US partners on development, security, reform and democratisation.

I agree with the points that the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) made about the value of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in that regard, speaking as someone with some experience of that.

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Member referred to Operation Althea, a European Union-led operation that the UK chose to leave on leaving the European Union; we left in 2020. Does he think that the UK would be wise to go back into that operation, as it can, as an associated state, or should there be a parallel security arrangement of the sort suggested by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee?

[Patrick Grady]

The recommendation of the House of Lords Committee was that the United Kingdom should re-evaluate the possibility of rejoining the operation, so that is the kind of direction in which there should be travel. It is about identifying the most important and appropriate role that the United Kingdom can play. Whatever form that takes, these are practical and achievable steps that the Government could take to demonstrate their willingness to be a good global actor.

A secure and stable, peaceful and prosperous region is not just in the interests of the people who live in the countries that make up the western Balkans—we heard powerful testimony about how people want to get on with their everyday lives—but in the interests of all of us who want to live in a peaceful and prosperous world.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Patrick Grady]

I have just concluded my speech.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

On one hand, the Minister says he wants to improve international co-operation on tackling illegal migration, but on the other hand he says the Government are not willing to come to an agreement with the Government of Ireland or any other European countries on returns of asylum seekers.

[Mr Mitchell]

I did not say anything of the sort, Mr Speaker. We are working together in numerous international fora, including the Global Refugee Forum, the G7, the UN General Assembly and the European Political Community summit, to tackle this matter upstream. Working upstream and working with others is critical to resolving this deeply disturbing problem.

Global Ocean Treaty

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on securing the debate. The decision to hold Westminster Hall debates slightly earlier on a Thursday is paying off, because it is giving more of us an opportunity to speak on behalf of our constituents on issues that are important to them.

Like the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), I have had dozens of communications— nearly 200—from constituents expressing their determination to see the global ocean treaty ratified and ensure that this debate is well attended. It is particularly encouraging to see Conservative Members make the positive case for multilateralism and the rule of international law. I want to assure hon. Members that the SNP joins the support for the principles of the treaty and the calls for its immediate ratification by the UK Government. If the hon. Member for Torbay’s private Member’s Bill helps to speed that up, so much the better.

The treaty goes by many different names: in full, it is known as the legally binding international instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. More simply, it is known as the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty, the high seas treaty or, as most of us have referred to, the global ocean treaty.

How we name things is important, and sometimes the high seas or international waters are described as some sort of frontier, which evokes dated imagery of unexplored territory that is there to be exploited. Previous frontiers, whether the American west or the interior of Africa, were no such things to the people, flora and fauna that had been there for hundreds if not thousands of years before European or other explorers arrived. The approach of the treaty is important in that it is an assumption not in favour of the exploitation of resources, but in favour of the conservation of the marine environment and the sustainable and managed development of any economic potential.

That potential is significant, as we have heard. Around half of the Earth’s surface is covered in water, but less than 2% of that area is under any kind of legal protection. At the same time, nearly 10% of global marine species are estimated to be at risk of extinction, so there is a need to rapidly enhance our approach and to ensure that treaty obligations can be undertaken and held to account. That means that there will be another round of COPs, but that is vital if we are to meet the 30 by 30 target that was spoken of by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and others.

The point about plastic pollution has also been well made by a number of hon. Members, starting with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). Many people in Glasgow North, myself included, recently took part in the Big Plastic Count to better understand our plastic use and how we can reduce our plastic footprint. There is also a campaign for a global plastics treaty that might sit alongside the oceans framework. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what progress has been made on that to ensure a just transition away from the use of single-use plastics in particular.

In Scotland, we stand ready to do our part. Our marine environment is an integral part of life in the country. It is difficult to go anywhere in Scotland and be particularly far from the sea. I am not sure how this compares to South West Bedfordshire, but I think the furthest point in Scotland, Glen Quoich in Braemar, is only about 65 km from the coast. If one goes up to any elevated point, it is not difficult to see either the sea or something that flows into the sea.

The marine environment in Scotland supports about 8,000 species of plants and animals, and new discoveries are always ongoing. Under the SNP Government, some 37% of Scotland’s territorial waters are now designated as marine protected areas, including 247 sites for nature conservation. The Scottish Government have a vision of

“a clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse marine and coastal environment”

managed in a way

“that meets the long term needs of people and nature.”

They, too, have adopted the idea of a blue economy approach to recognise the mutually beneficial nature of, and connectivity between, sustainable economic growth, inclusiveness and wellbeing, and protection of the environment and biodiversity.

Unfortunately, some of the UK Government’s actions to date do not necessarily always meet the same high ambitions. Their decision to grant new oil licences is not a long-term solution to energy security or the cost of energy crisis and is actively damaging to the progress that needs to be made on tackling climate change. It is estimated that the Rosebank oilfield, which the Government seem determined to press ahead with, would, over its lifespan, equal the annual emissions of about 90 countries and 400 million people. The development company’s own environmental statement admits that the construction of new oil wells would have the potential to lead to wider changes in the seabed, the direct loss of species and habitat, and wider indirect disturbances.

The Government have to be very careful about how they use some of the legal mechanisms and instruments contained in this treaty or others or in their own competence. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) spoke—not to my surprise—about the situation in the British Indian Ocean Territory and the Chagos islands. There was concern that when the marine protected area there was introduced, that was less in the interests of the marine environment and more in the interests of preventing resettlement of or the right of return to those islands. Of course, in the end, the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled that the UK should have engaged more fully with Mauritius before making that declaration, and in 2021 the UN’s International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ruled that the UK Government do not hold sovereignty over the Chagos islands—but perhaps it turns out that these are just more decisions by “foreign” courts that the UK Government choose to ignore.

That would be my only note of caution. I do not want to break the consensus that we have heard today, but I will just gently suggest to the hon. Member for Torbay that although his initiative today is incredibly commendable and there is clearly consensus in favour of the global ocean treaty and its rapid ratification, the reality is that in recent years the Government have not had the best track record of respecting their international obligations and have been simply dismissing or ignoring decisions or commitments that they find inconvenient.

Likewise, the Government have to consider carefully the message that their attitude sends to other countries around the world. We cannot pick and choose our obligations under international law. If we support the rules-based international order, if we support the treaties and mechanisms that have attempted to secure peace and security, or at least progress towards peace and security, and the protection of the environment since the second world war, we have to support and accept those institutions and agreements in their entirety. By all means make a case for reform, but that has to be done through the order that exists in the first place. That is particularly true if we expect and request other countries to do the same, so it also has to be true of our approach to the global ocean treaty.

The Government have a responsibility to current and future generations to do all they can to protect the marine environment. Water is life, as my friends in Malawi often say, and the waters that make up the seas are home to life in abundance. They are part of a global ecosystem on which we all depend, in a fragile balance that we damage or destroy at great peril to all of us. The ocean treaty has been hard won, and now the challenge is for the UK Government to play their part to ensure that the treaty delivers on its ambitions.

Human Rights: Consular Services

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Caroline, especially at relatively short notice. I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that when Scotland becomes an independent country, I am sure he will have more than sufficient heritage to apply for a Scottish passport, which he can proudly hold alongside his UK passport.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing this debate and on her efforts to champion this issue, because the adequacy—or otherwise—of consular assistance, particularly in difficult circumstances, has been of concern to many of us and to our constituents in recent years. We have heard particularly about the incarceration of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and I suspect that all of us received significant correspondence from constituents standing in solidarity with her and her family during the years of her imprisonment. I think of the debate that was held here in Westminster Hall in November 2021, which was one of the busiest I have ever taken part in. There were dozens and dozens of Members—far too many for them all to be able to speak in the time allowed.

However, in addition to high-profile cases with national significance, many of us will have dealt with the circumstances of other individuals, and we have heard examples today. In September 2017, I held an Adjournment debate in the main Chamber on consular assistance and support for people caught up in terrorist atrocities and particularly for witnesses. Constituents came to see me about terrorist attacks in Stockholm and Tunisia, and although they were fortunate in the sense that they had not been directly injured or bereaved, they had been witnesses to those attacks, which in itself was an incredibly traumatic experience. Regrettably, support was found to be lacking—both immediate assistance and longer-term follow-up—and has not always lived up to people’s expectations, which was a key point that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West made.

A lot of people look at their passport, at what is said on the FCDO’s website or perhaps at the experiences of citizens of other countries, and they expect a level of service that does not necessarily always manifest itself. I echo the hon. Member in saying that that is not a criticism of existing staff and the services that they attempt to provide. Many of them are doing a very impressive job in what are sometimes very difficult circumstances. That is partly a legacy of the austerity agenda, from which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it was, was not immune—in fact, it was perhaps seen as low-hanging fruit. What was once a Rolls-Royce Department was chipped and shaved away at, like so many other Departments, and its more limited staffing base is under increasing pressure. The Minister may disagree, but that is the experience that many of us have heard from our constituents. There is a growing divergence between what people expect to be entitled to and what the level of service sometimes turns out to be. We have heard examples of that: Nazanin in Iran has already been mentioned, but there are also Mehran Raoof in Iran—a dual citizen—Jimmy Lai and Jagtar Singh Johal, championed so worthily by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes).

There is therefore considerable merit in the private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West, and I hope the Government find a way to make time for it to progress. Important recommendations have been made in reports and other documents published by the all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad, consular services and assistance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) ably chairs. Like others, I acknowledge the important work of Redress, Amnesty International and others, which have supported those initiatives as they have gone through Parliament. I am particularly grateful for the work of Death Abroad—You’re Not Alone, run by my constituent Julie Love, who champions people who have lost a loved one overseas and who seek justice, repatriation or simply care and support.

I hope that the Minister is prepared to engage constructively and to listen to the real-life experiences we are bringing to his attention. I also hope he will consider how best the Government can live up to the expectations that people rightly have, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, because of what is written in the passports that we are all supposed to be so proud to carry around with us. If that has to be put on a statutory footing through the likes of the private Member’s Bill that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West is bringing forward, perhaps that is not a bad thing. Perhaps that would allow the FCDO to make the case to the Treasury for more adequate resourcing, for improved training and for more staff and resources to be available to our consular offices around the world. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute briefly, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Israel and Gaza

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I understand the passion with which the hon. Lady speaks, but simply calling for an immediate ceasefire will not make it happen. The best chance to stop the fighting is for an agreement in the hostage negotiations, which we can then use as the opportunity to deliver a full and permanent ceasefire.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The Minister keeps referring to the Government’s amendment last week, but those are just words on bits of paper in the recycle bin. They could have been the resolution of this House, but the Government chose not to give this House that choice. Instead, the resolution of this House is that there should be an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. What message does it send to the UN Security Council and wider international community if the Government will not adopt the language that has been agreed by the democratic legislature to which they are accountable, namely this House of Commons?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman is rewriting history. Last week saw the Leader of the House, a member of the Government, defending the rights of minority parties, in particular the hon. Gentleman’s party, from this Dispatch Box.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

As I said, Iran must stop using regional instability as cover to carry out its reckless acts. We recognise that it bears responsibility for any further escalation, and we are looking at all the tools that we have to bear down on the Iranian regime, including sanctions.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

10. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the human rights situation in Eritrea.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

We continue to press Eritrea bilaterally and at the UN Human Rights Council to end human rights violations. It may come as a surprise to the House to hear that Eritrea is an elected member of the UN Human Rights Council.

[Patrick Grady]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Eritrea, I often hear the country described as the North Korea of Africa. Young people are conscripted indefinitely, and critics of the regime are arbitrarily detained and disappeared. Does the Minister agree that that perhaps explains why over 90% of asylum claims from Eritreans in the UK are granted by the Home Office? What more can the Government do to take steps to ensure an end to human rights abuses in Eritrea and elsewhere in the horn of Africa, which are push factors behind irregular arrivals in the UK?

International Human Rights Abuses: UK Response

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on securing the debate, which is an important opportunity to raise very challenging situations around the world. She is right that it is even more appropriate to emphasise them in the week when we mark Holocaust Memorial Day.

I also pay tribute to the late Sir Tony Lloyd. He was a regular contributor to debates like this in Westminster Hall. In fact, some of us had the privilege of taking part in what turned out to be his last debate, on 7 December, which marked the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights and the UN convention on genocide. His commitment to human rights around the world was unwavering, and it was an honour and an inspiration to take part in any event or debate at which he was present. I got to know him particularly through his work on Colombia; I may say a bit more about that later. When Tony spoke out about the importance of protecting fundamental human rights, he did so—as all of us do—not just out of personal interest, or even as a result of witnessing such abuses at first hand or meeting people who had experienced them, but, as the hon. Member for Luton North said, on behalf of the people he represented and we represent in our constituencies.

Glasgow North, like Luton North, is home to a number of very active campaign groups—Amnesty International, Friends of the Earth, Global Justice Now—and many more people who belong to such organisations, even if they do not attend meetings, as well as thousands of others who take an interest in these issues and want to play their part as good global citizens. I hear from them regularly on many of the issues and country situations that have been raised today: the persecution of Christians in Nigeria; the brutal treatment of Uyghurs and other minority groups in China; violence against Hindus, Sikhs, Ahmadis and Christians in Pakistan; forced detention of protesters in Iran; and, of course, the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and in Israel and Gaza. The UK Government have a role to play in all those situations.

In Nigeria, journalists and digital activists continue to face harassment, threats and attacks by the state, simply for expressing critical opinions. Boko Haram continues to act with impunity in many areas, and continues to kill, abduct or displace thousands of Christians and other minorities each year. What are the UK Government doing to raise these concerns with their counterparts in Nigeria? What support are they providing to agencies on the ground, both to protect people at risk of violence and to support improvements to governance and political participation?

Likewise, in their relationship with Pakistan, how are the UK Government using the long and historic links with that country to call out persecution, and to encourage the authorities to respect diversity and plurality and live up to their international obligations on freedom of religion and belief?

The situation in China has been addressed many times, and I continue to hear from constituents with ongoing concerns about its treatment of Tibet, its persecution of Buddhists, the interference with the leadership of that community, the education of children there, and the denial of rights to those who want to peacefully practice Falun Gong and Falun Dafa. The UK Government need to continue to work with international partners, including through the UN Human Rights Council, to ensure that the Chinese Government are held to account.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a great speech, and he mentioned a long list of places with human rights abuses. He mentioned the UN Human Rights Council. I know that he, like me, has a great interest in West Papua. Over half a million people have been killed since the Indonesian occupation of West Papua, and 70,000 are internally displaced. The Indonesians have agreed a UN Commission on Human Rights visit to West Papua, but it has not happened; it has been blocked. Should the Government not once more press Indonesia and the UN for that visit to take place?

[Patrick Grady]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Those international bodies must have a purpose. If countries such as the United Kingdom will not show a lead, who will? I fully support and congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work on behalf of the people of West Papua.

Coming back to the situation in China, we also have a role to play. As individuals, we have a responsibility to consider where some of the cheap consumer goods we take for granted and order online have really come from. Whose hands have made them? Market forces can play a part in driving change, if consumers, including all of us here today, are prepared to ask and pay for fairly traded, sustainably sourced products.

On the middle east, the consensus among residents of Glasgow North is clear: there must be an immediate ceasefire on both sides in Israel and Gaza, with the release of hostages, the opening of humanitarian corridors to let aid in and people who want to leave out, and the beginning of the process to negotiate a lasting, peaceful, just and democratic settlement.

Condemnation and speaking out against these situations is important and symbolic, but there is more that the Government can and must do. They have given themselves powers to impose Magnitsky sanctions on individuals who commit gross human rights violations, and they should not be afraid to use those powers. They are negotiating trade deals and disbursing aid funds, and respect for human rights should be at the centre of policymaking in both those areas.

In many situations where people’s rights are not being fully respected, it is the behaviour not necessarily of Governments but of large multinational businesses that is responsible. I hear from many constituents who support legislation to hold companies and corporations to account. I mentioned Colombia earlier, and large extractive companies or agricultural conglomerates in many parts of that country are displacing whole communities to make way for gold mines or palm oil plantations, even where those communities are refused democratic consent or where displacement would destroy traditional ways of life or make a wider area unhabitable because of the pollution these activities bring.

The Government should work here in the UK and with international partners to put the Ruggie principles on business and human rights on an enforceable legislative footing. Many of these companies are listed on the UK stock market or are based here, so they should be subject to a rigorous compliance regime. A wide coalition of charities and NGOs are working hard on this issue, which should rightly be a consideration not just for the Government but for the official Opposition and for all of us who are preparing manifestos in this election year.

As will be clear from those who have spoken and those who will go on to speak, and as is clear from my mailbox, voters across the country care passionately about the human rights of everyone who lives on this planet. As many of us have said before, if one person’s rights are disrespected, in some respects all our collective human dignity is diminished.

The Scottish Government and the Scottish National party are clear that, with independence, respect for human rights would be at the heart of Scotland’s written constitution—with equal justice, equal opportunity and equal dignity for everyone who lives in Scotland—and the foundation of Scotland’s role on the world stage as a good global citizen.

In the meantime, there are clear practical steps that the UK Government, the Scottish Government and all of us as individuals and voters can take, to call out human rights abuses, to seek justice and restoration, and to prevent abuses from happening in the future. That should be at the forefront of all our minds in the months to come, thorough the general election and beyond.

Malaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

As this is the first sitting in this Chamber of 2024, may I take this opportunity to wish everyone a very happy and prosperous 2024?

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of the UK in ending malaria and neglected tropical diseases.

Thank you, Mrs Harris, and a very happy new year to you too. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate, and to the hon. Members from across the House who supported the bid, not all of whom have been able to make it here today. I think a few folk are stuck in traffic or whatever, so perhaps we will see some more faces as the debate goes on. I am very grateful to everyone who has come here to take part.

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last year I and a number of colleagues visited Malawi with the all-party parliamentary group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases to learn more about the efforts to end these diseases, and to see at first hand the impact of UK investment on those efforts. I will draw on that experience in my contribution today.

We are particularly grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate now, because at the end of this month, on Tuesday 30 January, we will mark World Neglected Tropical Diseases Day—a day designated by the World Health Organisation to raise awareness of the challenge and the opportunity that we have to eliminate many of these deadly diseases. It will be the first such awareness day of the calendar year, and the fourth time that that particular day has been marked. This year’s theme is “Unite. Act. Eliminate.” It challenges decision makers and those in positions of power—including everyone taking part in this debate—to work together to mobilise the resources necessary to eliminate malaria and other neglected tropical diseases.

Debates such as this about international development can be full of acronyms, and we will no doubt hear today references to many of them, including SDGs, sustainable development goals; spending on ODA, official development assistance; and WHO, the World Health Organisation. Acronyms can be a useful shorthand, but we have to be careful that we do not reduce what we are discussing to technical or abstract concepts. When we talk about NTDs—neglected tropical diseases—we are not talking just about a group of 21 diseases that exist in test tubes or Petri dishes in a laboratory somewhere. These diseases are having an impact on the daily lives of 1.7 billion people around the world—nearly one in five of the global population. They can cause immense suffering, disability and disfigurement, and are often fatal. In many ways, it is not just the diseases that are neglected; the people affected by them are also, by definition, being neglected.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. He rightly says that we should not be distracted by the statistics, but given the fact that one in five people on the planet is affected, it is important that we remember that many of these diseases are entirely preventable if the right action is taken as early as possible.

[Patrick Grady]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I think that the point he makes will come through in all the contributions and evidence that we hear today.

The evidence shows that, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is the poorest and most vulnerable and marginalised people in remote communities, and particularly women and girls, who are affected most by these diseases. For example, noma, which was added to the WHO’s list of NTDs just a few weeks ago, in December, is a severe gangrenous disease of the mouth and face that primarily affects malnourished children between the ages of two and six years in regions of extreme poverty. Hookworm, a type of soil-transmitted helminth, affects one in three pregnant women in sub-Saharan Africa and can cause anaemia and lead to death during pregnancy. Schisto-somiasis, or bilharzia, which is slightly easier to say, is very common in Malawi, where we visited; it can lead to female genital schistosomiasis, of which there are 56 million cases worldwide, which can triple the risk of HIV and cause infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and in some cases maternal death.

The human cost of these diseases is incredibly high. On our visit to Malawi, in the Salima district we met a number of people who had lived with trachoma, a bacterial infection that can cause eyelashes to draw in, damaging eyesight and even causing blindness. People affected in that way can very easily lose their independence, and their family and friends have to dedicate time and resources to caring for them. If it is caught early, trachoma can be treated with antibiotics or surgery, and it can be prevented by good water and sanitation for health practices. The key lesson, which the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) just mentioned, is that trachoma can be eliminated altogether. That gives us another acronym, SAFE: surgery to treat the blinding stage of the disease, antibiotics to clear the infection, facial cleanliness and hand hygiene to help reduce transmission, and environmental improvements to help stop the infection spreading.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that.

As you do over the holiday period, I watched lots of films. One of the advertisements on the channel that I was watching said that, at a small cost—I think it is as little as £11—a surgical operation that stops eyesight loss can be offered. That is a small cost to pay for a long-term health gain.

[Patrick Grady]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and we will come on to that as the debate continues. It is exactly as I was saying: we met people who had been affected by trachoma, but interventions supported by the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust’s trachoma initiative helped to restore their sight through are exactly the kinds of operations and access to medicine that he is talking about. Since 2022, trachoma has been eliminated as a public health concern in Malawi. It is the first country in southern Africa, the fourth country in the WHO Africa region and the 15th country globally to achieve that milestone.

What we witnessed was not just individual transformation —men and women whose sight had been restored and who could again live independently—but community transformation, because they could go back to actively contributing by caring for their grandchildren and helping with other tasks around the home. In turn, their families benefit from that support and can focus their time and energy back on education or employment. That is the reality of the statistics, which demonstrate both the value of taking action and the cost of continuing to neglect these diseases.

Many of the researchers and practitioners who are taking an interest in this subject have told us, as the hon. Gentleman just suggested, that investment in NTDs really is a best-buy in global health intervention. The campaign group Uniting to Combat NTDs reckons that, in some cases, investing just $1 in tackling these diseases could unlock $25 of benefits. Brighton and Sussex Medical School has calculated that the economic burden to a patient with podoconiosis, which is a form of elephantiasis, can be up to £100 per year, but that the one-off cost of a single treatment is just £52. A study by Deloitte showed that, if Nigeria met its NTD elimination targets by 2030, it could add $19 billion to the value of its economy. If we want to achieve the sustainable development goals, unlock wasted economic potential, change the nature of aid flows and release new forms of finance to help developing countries drive poverty reduction and grow their economies, investing properly and effectively in tackling NTDs is essential.

The fight against malaria is one of the best demonstrations of that point. The all-party group’s visit to Malawi was not my first visit, or even my last visit to that beautiful country. I first lived and worked in Malawi nearly 20 years ago. The prevalence and impact of malaria has always been evident throughout that country’s history. Those of us who came from Scotland and other countries where malaria is not endemic were affected, because we were strongly encouraged to take prophylactic medication—at that time, Lariam—which is not without side effects. Daily, we saw kids in the school where we taught missing class because they had contracted malaria. Sometimes it would affect the teachers, too, so that whole classes missed out on their education or relied on some of the volunteers to pick up the slack, which might have been okay if it was a maths or English class, but was slightly more complicated if it was Chichewa lessons.

Malaria, like so many of these diseases, is preventable and curable, yet there were 249 million cases in 2022, which is five million more than in 2021 and 16 million more than in 2019. Malaria still kills around 608,000 people around the world each year, most of them young children. That is approximately one child a minute, or 90 completely avoidable deaths in the time set aside for today’s debate. There has been progress, but more can be made. Many of the required interventions are, in principle at least, very straightforward: for example, using bed nets is very simple and effective. The New Nets Project, developed by a number of UK institutions including the Innovative Vector Control Consortium, a Liverpool-based product development partnership, along with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and Imperial College London, has developed nets with dual active ingredients that combine insecticides to respond to growing resistance to insecticides among mosquitos.

In Malawi, in Mtira village in the Balaka district, we witnessed indoor residual spraying of insecticide, and in the local clinic—a small, brick, thatched building with one room—a chart was proudly displayed showing the dramatic decline in the incidence of malaria patients in the village in just the four years since the spraying began. Outside Lilongwe, in Mitundu village, we visited the clinic where some of the very first doses of the new RTS,S vaccine against malaria had been dispensed, starting in 2019. We were very privileged to meet young Evison Saimon, who is now five years old and had benefited from the vaccine.

These success stories have come about only through the incredible effort of and collaboration between a range of partners and funding bodies, including national Government ministries, UNICEF, the WHO and private or charitable organisations including GlaxoSmithKline and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. What they all have in common is security of funding and a clear goal.

Around the world, however, more money is still spent on treating male pattern baldness and curing hay fever—I and a few other hon. Members in the Chamber have lived experience of both conditions—than on tackling malaria. Hay fever can be debilitating, but it is rarely life-threatening, and the main symptoms of baldness can be readily treated with a hat. That speaks to some of the serious challenges in how the pharmaceutical industry approaches these diseases and how research and development can be properly carried out.

Many of us know about researchers’ frustration with the lack of certainty around funding. The product development partnership model funded by the former Department for International Development worked to overcome shortcomings in the commercial research and development sector and was seen as a leader in funding such efforts through public ODA until the axe began to fall in 2021. Since then, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been able to provide funding guarantees only one year at a time, which causes massive uncertainty for projects that require long-term funding. Clinical trials cannot be turned on and off like a tap; they take time and effort in the field and have to run over defined periods of time. They cannot be driven by political funding cycles.

Where trials work, there have been and continue to be breakthroughs. The drug discovery unit at the University of Dundee, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) will be familiar with, has worked with the PDP Medicines for Malaria Venture to develop cabamaquine, which could not only treat malaria with a single dose but potentially protect people from contracting the disease and stop its spread. The Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative has revolutionised treatment for sleeping sickness with fexinidazole, a simple oral cure, instead of the only available previous treatment, which was toxic and cumbersome and could kill up to one in 20 patients. For those kinds of innovations to be effective, there has to be sustained, effective and targeted investment. Without it, we find an ever-changing environment where the malaria virus continues to adapt and evolve, and buzzes about just like the mosquito that carries it, frustratingly difficult for the scientists to whack it against the wall, even though they can see and hear it.

We know that elimination of malaria and other tropical diseases is possible, because it has already been done. Many diseases that were once endemic here in the United Kingdom and in other parts of the world have been eradicated. Individual countries and regions, as we saw in Malawi with trachoma, have been able to make progress and eliminate certain diseases as public health threats, but if we allow progress to stall, we risk undoing the good work that has already been done, and new, stronger and more difficult to treat variants of these diseases will emerge.

That is before we take into account increasing challenges such as climate change. Last year, for the first time, the World Malaria Report included a chapter on climate change. Malaria and other tropical diseases are extremely sensitive to the environment, affected by temperature, rainfall and humidity. Locally acquired malaria has been detected in Florida and Texas in recent years, while dengue fever has appeared in France and other parts of Europe. All of a sudden, commercial pharma-ceutical companies are taking more interest in many of these diseases, but a purely economic or profit-driven approach on its own will not be enough to tackle these diseases properly. For example, investing in a vaccine for dengue fever that would benefit tourists travelling to affected areas is very important, but for countries such as Bangladesh or the Philippines, an effective, immediate treatment for people who have already contracted the disease is more of a priority.

In all of this, we have to consider the role of institutions and organisations in the United Kingdom and the role of the UK Government in supporting them and global partners. There can be no hiding from the impact of the cuts to the ODA budget. Any of us who speak to partner organisations or to those who have previously received funding and put it to such good use, continue to hear of the long-term impact of short-term decisions. We all welcome the White Paper, the new tone and focus of the International Development Minister, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), and his team, the reinvigoration of the SDGs and the determination to build a new consensus, but at the end of the day, stakeholders ask us when 0.7% will return. That is a question both for the Minister and for the official Opposition, and for all our manifestoes in this election year.

The next replenishment cycle for the Global Fund will be in 2025. At that point, we hope that the UK will be in a position to meet the requested funding, rather than the 29% reduction that it provided last year. Can the Minister make similar commitments for multilateral initiatives such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and Unitaid? The UK has signed up to a number of commitments on neglected tropical diseases, including the 2022 Kigali declaration, the G7 leaders’ communiqué and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting communiqué, so what steps will the Minister be taking to drive these commitments forwards?

The SDGs are a welcome focus in the White Paper. SDG 3.3 sets a target of ending the malaria epidemic and achieving a 90% reduction in the number of people requiring interventions against NTDs by 2030, so how are the Government leveraging funding and working with partners to meet those goals? In practical terms, can the Minister commit to multi-year funding for research and development in these areas, particularly for product development partnerships? What steps are the Government taking to build and support R&D and manufacturing capacity in affected countries? On our visit to Malawi, we saw the world-class Blantyre-Blantyre facility, which was developed in partnership between the University of Glasgow, in my constituency, and the Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, and funded in part by the Scottish Government. That is real innovation, genuine partnership and the empowerment of a new generation of young local researchers, clinicians and academics, and it was inspiring to meet a number of them during our visit.

The Government must recognise the importance of cross-sectoral approaches, and ensure that there is co-ordination and collaboration between malaria and NTD programmes and existing investments in nutrition, education, WASH—water, sanitation and hygiene—disability inclusion, and maternal and child health. In all of this, we have to address the structural issues, including the climate emergency and the growing debt burden on developing countries. We have debated a number of these topics recently in Westminster Hall, and it shows the interconnectedness of so many of the challenges around achieving the SDGs.

In November’s debate on African debt, which was led by the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who I am delighted to see present, I said that Malawi is one of 21 African countries that are in or at high risk of debt distress. Its external debt effectively tripled between 2009 and 2021, and we can see the impact of that in the country’s inability to get moving. How different the country might be if the payments it is making on debt, or even just on debt interest, could be invested instead in primary healthcare and in eradicating not just trachoma, but malaria and all the other endemic diseases affecting its population.

All of these challenges are created or, at the very least, exacerbated by the actions and decisions of people, which means that the challenges can be overcome by the actions and decisions of people—whether that it is each of us as individuals practising basic hand and face hygiene to help prevent the spread of disease, or Government Ministers making decisions about millions of pounds of aid spending. Malaria and many other tropical diseases have been neglected for far too long, which means that the people most affected by these diseases have also been neglected for far too long, but all the evidence shows that we can cure, prevent and, ultimately, end the scourge of these diseases. For relatively little cost, we can achieve a massive return on investment, both in long-term savings on the costs of chronic treatment and in the actualisation of the economic and social potential of people who are no longer confined to a sick bed or, worse, to an early death, but who are working for the betterment of their families and communities.

Many, if not most of us, present for the debate will have witnessed malaria and tropical diseases at first hand on delegations or through our own personal experiences, so I look forward to hearing the contributions from other Members and how the Minister responds. I hope that when we get to World NTD Day at the end of the month, the Government will be able to draw on the experiences of Members and their contributions to today’s debate, and endorse this year’s theme that we should all unite, act and, ultimately, eliminate malaria and all neglected tropical diseases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

I am grateful to all Members who have taken part today. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) spoke about the return on investment. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made the point that this issue is very important to our church communities and to many of our constituents. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) brought to bear much of her personal experience, as did the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland)—I will call him my hon. Friend, because I think we are all hon. Friends today. I thank the hon. Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West)—this is a bit of a reunion for those who went on the APPG’s visit—and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), who provided a suitably robust challenge to the Minister. I also thank the Minister for her summation and her reflection on all the points that were made during the debate.

It is quite frustrating that there is a category of diseases known as “neglected” and that work has to be focused on them. One of the key principles of the sustainable development goals is that we leave no one behind. Nobody should be neglected, and none of the factors that keep people in poverty, including these diseases, should be neglected. That is a challenge for all of us as we come to write our election manifestos for the coming year.

I hope that today’s debate has, at the very least, raised some awareness, meaning that these diseases will be slightly less neglected and that we can continue to unite and act and can, ultimately, eliminate malaria and other neglected tropical diseases so that they become eradicated tropical diseases.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the role of the UK in ending malaria and neglected tropical diseases.