Sudan: Government Support

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Brian Mathew]

I totally agree; we need to be far more outspoken on this issue.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. When I read the transcript from the International Development Committee, I was struck by the contribution from Liz Ditchburn, who said that the Government’s approach to this was not sufficiently structured and that there needed to be focus and strategy. Does he agree that we need to convene such focus and strategy in this place in order to have a comprehensive response?

[Brian Mathew]

I very much agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope that my speech will bring some ideas to the floor.

The Government need to be bolder, more direct and proactive in their work to support Sudan and the Sudanese people. As UN Security Council penholder on Sudan and lead in the core group on Sudan at the UN Human Rights Council for the protection of civilians, it is our duty to try every possible avenue to push for peace and change. I am sure we are all glad to see the recent announcement from the Foreign Secretary that £5 million in aid will be going to Sudan, in addition to the £120 million already allocated this financial year, with £2 million specifically going to support survivors of sexual violence. This conflict has been particularly devasting for the women and girls subjected to that violence. They often have no potential recourse, justice or even access to the most basic health services after being attacked.

We need to look to the future and to recommendations from the sources that predicted the ongoing violence. Protection Approaches, an organisation that repeatedly predicted the potential for extreme violence in El Fasher, has pointed to the city of Tawila as a next step in the trajectory of the Rapid Support Forces’ strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. Perhaps I can reassure her by saying that the UK remains extremely concerned about the persecution of individuals on the basis of their religion or belief, a point that has also been made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) during the debate. We have strongly condemned the violence in El Fasher and north Darfur, as well as attacks on places of worship, including in other countries across the world. We also regularly use our role as leader of the core group on Sudan at the Human Rights Council to advocate for the protection of civilians in line with international law, including the right to freedom of religion and belief.

Turning to some of the other points that have been made, as has been referred to, we have recently seen advances by the Rapid Support Forces into El Fasher, accompanied by shocking reports of mass murder and rape. Last week, the Foreign Secretary condemned the horrific massacre at the Saudi maternity hospital, as well as the murder of five very courageous humanitarian workers, and called on the RSF to urgently facilitate rapid, safe and unimpeded humanitarian access across El Fasher. That point has been made extremely powerfully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who has raised this issue and the need to support action in Sudan several times in recent weeks. I thank her for her contributions.

As the United Nations Security Council penholder, we called an urgent council meeting on 30 October to respond to the worsening crisis, and penned a press statement condemning the RSF’s assault. Last week we mobilised £23 million in emergency aid for El Fasher, and on 1 November the Foreign Secretary announced a further £5 million to help get food, clean water and medical supplies to over 100,000 people in north Darfur. Our special representative to Sudan, Richard Crowder, remains in contact with the RSF and its political alliance, Tasis, pressing for restraint and reminding it of its obligations under international law. We are also talking to international partners, calling on those who have influence over the parties to use it to urge restraint and bring them to the table.

The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes made a very important point when he said that this cannot go on—we need to find a way to establish a ceasefire and ensure that we have a political solution. As such, our approach to Sudan is based on three pillars: first, pushing for that permanent ceasefire and supporting a civilian-led transition; secondly, securing unimpeded humanitarian access in order to deliver lifesaving aid; and thirdly, protecting civilians and ensuring accountability.

In April, as has also been referred to, the UK convened the London Sudan conference, alongside co-hosts France, Germany, the EU and the African Union. That conference brought together a broad coalition of international partners to build consensus on protecting civilians, improving humanitarian access and ending the conflict.

We have sustained the momentum built by the conference, and at the UN General Assembly in September the Foreign Secretary hosted high-level events, alongside our conference co-hosts, refocusing global attention on the crisis and the urgent need for action. That call for a continuation of global attention has been echoed by a number of Members this evening. The UK special representative for Sudan has maintained regular engagement with Sudanese civil society—including the anti-war coalition Sumud—and has done so, for instance, through the Sudan stability and growth programme, which aims to support Sudan on the path to an inclusive, resilient and peaceful political settlement. UK support has helped to establish Sudan’s largest pro-democracy coalition, and has included work with 200 women to shape a national political dialogue.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said, but can she tell me how the UK is approaching the UAE, especially in relation to the supply of arms and the use of mercenaries who are being deployed into Sudan?

[Seema Malhotra]

I should first make it clear—as the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, did recently—that we take very seriously allegations that UK-made military equipment may have been transferred to Sudan in breach of the UK arms embargo. The UK has one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world. There is no evidence in recent reporting of UK weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan, and there are no current export licences for the equipment reported on. However, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) may wish to continue to raise her concerns with my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

The UK continues to emphasise that external support for warring parties only fuels the conflict, and we urge all actors to press for that vital political solution. We welcome the Quad’s efforts to secure an immediate three-month ceasefire, and to end this terrible suffering. Conversations continue with members of the Quad and others across the international community.

Official Development Assistance Reductions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing the debate.

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I have recently met Unite representatives who work for development agencies. They set out the challenges that they face, professionally and personally, from the cuts to the aid budget. As they face job losses here and around the world, their greater concern is the impact of the cuts, not least given that $44 billion of development funding has been cut this year alone. That is a scandal, given that the UN highlights that for every $1 invested in peacebuilding and development initiatives, $16 are saved, and that for every $1 invested to stimulate economic growth and stability, $103 can be saved by averting future instability.

The World Health Organisation warns that the cuts will mean 38 million essential immunisations not being delivered to children, and that we will see regression in TB, AIDS, malaria and many other programmes. The UN World Food Programme will be starved of vital funds, and the loss of education will deny too many, especially girls, a future. This is a false choice between development, defence and diplomacy, which are now out of balance with one other, causing instability to grow.

I urge the Government to rethink and restore our 0.7% commitment, and to look to raise it to 1%, as we are now learning of the real climate devastation that is causing so much unrest around the world. The last Labour Government built global respect as we modelled our investment approach on building resilience and enabling local providers to sustain services for themselves, multiplying their impact. The erosion we have witnessed since we lost office—the shutting of the Department for International Development, the removal of a Cabinet member and the diversion of funds to pay for the asylum hotels scandal—has been stark. We need to reset our strategy and focus.

Climate and geopolitical challenges are unabating, so the UK approach is needed more than ever to de-risk and build stability in the system. Get this wrong and demands on defence will rise; cut too deep and diplomacy will lose impact. Scaling down funding will have a particular cost for women and girls—it is gendered. Yet fund them, and their empowerment and resilience is unparalleled. Cutting our aid presence gives countries such as China and Russia further space to intervene, as we have heard. Their interests are far removed from ours: while we seek independence, they drive dependence. Their economic models are self-serving; they seek power, control and extraction, and escalate risk for recipients and for us.

We have been such pioneers in providing leadership. Staff have excelled globally. Now they are fighting for others, so today I am fighting for them. The Minister knows the arguments all too well, and I trust that her powerful voice will echo around the Treasury over the coming days so that we can avoid this futile cut, which will cause such harm, cost lives, and cut hope and opportunity. We cannot afford to look away now, when the world is looking to us to step up and lead again.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) not only for all her work in the region, but for bringing this debate forward.

We have met those who have suffered and lost, and who have risked everything to deliver aid and service. We have seen pictures of suffering that no mind can forget and heard the heart-rending agony of trauma and devastation: from the children whose bodies are unrecognisable from blasts, bullets and bombs, with no analgesia to soothe them, to children so emaciated that they can no longer feed—little bundles of linen, as parents are ripped apart with grief. And yet it continues. Our constituents want our Government to do more. All they feel that they can do is march, donate and pray. We too want our Government to do more, but we have to believe that even today, our agency will resonate with them and with the Knesset.

I want to ask the Minister a few questions on the health aid that we can provide. What are the plans for this afternoon’s discussions? What is going to happen after today to ensure that aid arrives at its destination? How will we ensure that healthcare gets through, and how will we provide the support and training of medical staff to ensure that we can rebuild the health service for the future?

Humanitarian Situation in Sudan

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this debate.

This war is both violent and catastrophic, entrenched in bitterness and brutality. It is backed by external actors feeding the atrocities enacted upon civilians, especially women and girls. We have heard graphically today of the levels of physical, sexual and psychological violence. We also see the tragedy of famine and disease, with floods expected to cause even further harm. While the world looks away and the political platforms are silent, today, as Back Benchers, we are calling Government to account over this humanitarian crisis.

The Sudanese need this Government and those around the world to step up. We need a strategy and relief to be met with opportunity and hope. The escalating suffering and brutality of war in Sudan since April 2023 exceeds that of all conflicts. As people move out, external actors are moving in, fuelling their interests and those of the warring parties, as are those with economic interests, particularly in gold. Darfur, as ever, is the focus of this conflict. We have heard today about the impact on El Fasher and the Zamzam camp for those already experiencing such tragedy. The scale of aid that is needed requires not only the UK Government, but those around the world, to step up. I plead again with the Government to move rapidly to restore the 0.7% ODA target, because our world is suffering and needs that replacement.

As we look at the strategic approach, we recognise that the three strands of defence, diplomacy and development need to be held in far better balance in order to achieve outcomes for people in Sudan and across our world. Therefore, as we look forward, we have to get the strategy and the financing right and, ultimately, diplomacy in the right place. It is essential that the African Union is empowered and strengthened through its regional efforts, but it is time for the Government to refresh a resolution at the UN, be mission-focused and ensure that the right measures are put in place for the next Security Council.

We know that time is not on our side and we have heard about the scale today. We need to focus on three strands. The first is the humanitarian response of food, healthcare and support for all those who are displaced, whether internally or externally, across the region and beyond.

The second strand is the protection of civilians. We need to develop strategies for sustained support, access for humanitarian and medical aid, aid at scale, better communications, the documentation of evidence of war crimes and adherence to international law. We need to ensure the creation of safe areas that are patrolled and protected. We also need to ensure that there is a trauma-based approach, and most of all that it is delivered on the ground through the experts who have developed the connections and reasons for it. We also need to move to disarmament, demobilisation, reintegration and, ultimately, rebuilding.

The third strand is a political process. We know how crucial it is at such times to establish good dialogue and systems that enable conversations about not only accountability but moving forward to take place. We need to take a human rights approach while upholding international law. Governance must be rebuilt through civil society. We need to ensure that civil society is leading the dialogue and invest in that heavily, so that this will never be a forgotten war, but one where peace prevails.

Middle East

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I stand by all the decisions we have made as a Government, which are numerous; I listed them in my statement. On the full arms embargo, I am content that we are not sending arms that could be used in Gaza. I ask the hon. Lady to look closely at the export licensing regime, because there are many things that are sent to Israel, and they are for use by NGOs in Israel sometimes so that they themselves are not injured in theatres of conflict.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

Doctors have told us that they walk into the emergency room and see, if not starved and emaciated children, tiny bodies strewn across the floor with burns, blasts and bullets, and their job is to choose which child to save and which ones they will have to let go. That is decision making. The Foreign Secretary has an option right before him to make a decision that could make a difference to those children—to protect all health facilities, with the means to do that at the UN. I trust that he will do that. Secondly, if he does not recognise the state of Palestine, there will be no state left to recognise.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the vision that she paints, and I associate myself with the remarks she makes in relation to children, particularly about starvation and the situation that they face. Of course we are working closely with the UN system. I spoke to Tom Fletcher at the beginning of last week to get the latest on the aid situation, and we will continue to work with him.

Sudan

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for all the work he did before coming to Parliament and his important support for so many countries; I have been in debates with him on Myanmar and others. It is important that we lay on the record that £120 million is a lot of money, and that we have to follow that money. As I explained before, de-banking sometimes occurs in certain contexts, which is why we need to have those relationships on the ground with the sorts of aid organisations that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow spoke about, covering the situation as it is today and how to maintain those relationships. My personal view is that it is not always just about the impact of the budget; sometimes it is about the diplomatic work that goes on around the funding so that we can maximise that money.

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

The brutal violence being perpetrated against Sudanese civilians is only fuelled by external actors from the UAE, Egypt, Russia and beyond. Will the Minister ensure diplomatic interventions with each of those nations and report back to the House on the outcome of those dialogues? Will she also ensure that the UK leads on banning the use of mercenaries in areas of conflict? We have not signed a convention as the UK Government, and it is time that we led a new convention on the use of mercenaries.

[Catherine West]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work as the chair of the APPG for Sudan and South Sudan. We have now heard from both the former chair, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), and the current chair. I know that my hon. Friend has a Sudanese diaspora in her locality, too.

May I just emphasise that the UK is not protecting any country with an interest in this conflict? We have been very clear that we expect all countries to comply with existing UN sanctions regimes and the arms embargo, and we continue to work closely with partners at the UN Security Council to enforce them. We need to move on to the political resolution of the conflict. I also ask for my hon. Friend’s patience; I will fold the second part of her question into the challenge I had from my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on updating some of our policies and procedures that have not been updated since 2019.

Middle East

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I qualified and was called to the Bar in 1995 and have not practised for the past 25 years. It is not for me to comment on the United States and legality. I refer him to article 51 and article 2 of the UN charter, and he can seek his own advice.

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

My right hon. Friend is right to focus on de-escalation and diplomacy. However, we know that the joint comprehensive plan of action did not curtail Iran’s enrichment of uranium, so what lesson will he learn as he rebuilds the architecture for diplomacy to ensure that Iran cannot rebuild its nuclear-enriched uranium?

[Mr Lammy]

With Iran enriching at 60% and the International Atomic Energy Agency saying that Iran has no credible civilian justification for that high enrichment level, my hon. Friend is quite right. Therefore, the debate has moved on, and it has moved on to zero enrichment.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. The steps that we have taken have been concrete, but he is right that there remain terrible risks of famine and other circumstances that befall people when adequate aid is not allowed in. When proper water and sanitation is not provided, the risks of further humanitarian catastrophe are considerable. We will continue to press those points with the Israeli Government, alongside our friends and allies.

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

If the UK Government fail to recognise the state of Palestine next week, what message will it send to the perpetrators of this genocide and to the suffering Palestinians?

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern over events at the Rafah crossing and beyond. The scenes from Gaza are intolerable. I will return to this House when I am in a position to do so.

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

It is clear that this House has no confidence in the Government’s handling of the F-35 programme. I ask the Minister the following question: what is to stop the Government withdrawing from the programme and then bilaterally selling the parts to countries excluding Israel? This would ensure that we are compliant with international humanitarian law, and that no component manufactured in the UK is used to bomb innocent civilians in Gaza.

[Mr Falconer]

A unilateral withdrawal from the F-35 programme would have the effect of fully suspending the programme at a time it is required for global peace and security.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this vital debate. It is imperative that we get the Bill right and that the protections and procedures are watertight. I thank my constituents on both sides of the debate who have written to me.

I support amendment 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), which would allow those with neurodegenerative diseases to be eligible for an assisted death if they are within 12 months of dying. Nigel Hartley MBE, the chief executive officer of Mountbatten Hampshire hospice in my constituency, told me that palliative care and assisted dying are not and should not be at odds with each other. Palliative care can provide incredible support. I am very glad that this debate has reopened the national conversation about funding for palliative care. However, as I know from my personal experience with my mum, who died last March after a seven-year struggle with Alzheimer’s, sometimes palliative care can only go so far. Amendment 4 recognises that those with neurodegenerative illnesses deserve the same compassion, control and dignity as others at the end of their lives. By extending the timeframe to 12 months, they will be given more control over their ultimate decision.

I support new clause 10, which extends the right for any professional to opt out of providing assistance under the Bill, and extends the protections to a broader range of professionals who may be involved.

I also support amendments 59 and 62, which relate to training on domestic abuse. Those amendments are critical to ensuring that the co-ordinating doctor can identify signs of domestic abuse. The inclusion of training enhances the Bill’s protective framework, as no medical professional without specific and up-to-date training on domestic abuse will be able to serve as a co-ordinating doctor. Importantly, amendment 74 defines “domestic abuse” using the language of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which explicitly includes coercive, controlling and economic abuse.

Amendment 63 removes any ambiguity about the scope of eligibility, and makes it clear that only terminal illness qualifies under this legislation. That clarity is essential to maintaining public trust and ensuring that the Bill is not open to misinterpretation or misuse. It can be incredibly difficult for people with disabilities, and their families and carers, to get their concerns across—they can often feel unseen and unheard—so the amendment is vital.

Finally, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for her work on the Bill and her tremendous courage, determination, willingness to engage and resilience. As others have said, the decision before us is fundamentally about whether we believe in an individual’s right to have choice at the end of their life. I know what my mum would have said.

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

I rise to speak to amendments 26, 45 and 46, which stand in my name and the names of other Members. I am grateful for their support.

On amendment 26, hospice care is not a formulation of care, but a clinical setting where palliative care is delivered, so I trust that the House will accept my amendment in the interests of accuracy.

On amendment 45 and consequential amendment 46, the literature points to complex clinical decision making—which the subject of the Bill is—being safer if it happens in the context of multidisciplinary teams, as was advocated for by the professional bodies at the very start of the process. Such a context screens out unconscious bias and provides for clinical accountability with robust interdependency. It demands a deliberative process and it safeguards clinicians and patients with more secure outcomes. I have talked extensively to the professional bodies and clinicians, and I have read the academic evidence. In drawing on best practice, this amendment would provide such safeguards and ensure that the patient is at the heart of the process.

Members will know from the evidence given to the Bill Committee that the initial assessment is the most important part of the process, and clinicians and professional bodies do not understand why psychiatrists and social workers are being placed in a quasi-judicial role, rather than being used for their clinical and social expertise. The process makes the wrong assumptions. Without the amendments, there is a predication towards an assisted death, rather than the Bill recognising the insecure position that someone with a terminal illness finds themselves in and the safeguards that are required. There are many reasons for suicidality, and they should be explored.

In clinical practice, should someone determine that they want to end their life for whatever reason, a clinician would seek to ensure that the right professionals were involved in the care of the person, with exploration, diagnosis and, where necessary, therapeutic and pharmacological interventions.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I will not. Dr Lade Smith, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, could not have been clearer, and academic research says the same: when someone is in receipt of a terminal diagnosis, there is frequently an episode of depressive disorder. Dr Price said in evidence:

“Those who had a wish to hasten death were 18 times more likely to also feel suicidal”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 275, Q359.]

They say that mental disorders are treatable. The spike in suicidal ideation and action is highest in the first few months following terminal diagnosis and then dissipates with time or intervention. Again, that is evidenced. People change their mind and no longer want to die.

As with other aspects of the Bill, poor care, poor pain management and poor symptom control—or the fear thereof—are reasons why people seek to end their life. That can be palliated. Colleagues must recognise the paucity of mental health provision given to somebody when they receive a terminal diagnosis. Often there is no psychological aftercare. People are failed, but that should not be a reason to die.

I ask for a panel, which would include a social worker, to assess the psychological needs of a patient. They are experts in detecting coercion, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, and understanding people at their most vulnerable with a fusion of complex emotions, anxiety and fear. Solutions can be found by them. There would also be a psychiatrist. Depression, anxiety and fear are natural responses to trauma, but they can be treated with the right interventions, if detected at the point that somebody expresses a wish to die, and a person can have a wish to live. The travesty of getting it wrong is unconscionable.

There would be a palliative care consultant who is registered on the GMC’s specialist register. They would understand the actions that could alleviate someone’s suffering. Evidence to the Bill Committee from Sue Ryder showed how poor provision led to someone considering an assisted death. Likewise, the president of the Association for Palliative Medicine, Dr Sarah Cox, said:

“We know that effective palliative care can change a terminally ill person’s point of view from wanting to die to wanting to live.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 70, Q84.]

That is evidence. It is a point I have heard from all leaders on the Commission on Palliative and End-of-Life Care. These are the specialists who know how to palliate the physical, psychological, social and spiritual problems of a patient, and they have techniques that many people have not had access to, because of poor provision.

The palliative care commission reported on Tuesday and I urge hon. Members to read its evidence-rich report, which draws on best practice. We reported that excellence in end-of-life provision is achievable, but that too many people are not getting access to it. Without that, I fear that the Bill only leads the patient down one route—to die. This is not a choice at all, but a path to an assisted death.