Sudan: Government Support

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Seema Malhotra

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Education and Adoption Bill

Debate between Rachael Maskell and Seema Malhotra

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on sharing his experiences with us. I am sure he will bring real value to the House. I also thank the other four new Members who have given their maiden speeches today.

I have to say that I am intrigued. This is the Second Reading debate on the Government’s one piece of legislation addressing standards in education. We are left with a draft Bill that looks at a very narrow definition of something called “coasting” and proposes yet another top-down reorganisation in education, rather than looking at the causes of the unbelievable pressures on our schools at this time and at what would really make a difference to children’s education. Those pressures include the cuts to support services provided by our local authorities, the recruitment and retention crisis in our schools, the incredible pressures under which teachers are being put, and the funding crisis that many of our schools are experiencing. It is the causes that we should be debating today and what will really turn around the lives of our nation’s children and improve schools. Instead, we have to debate something called “coasting”. Even at this moment, we are denied the opportunity to have a clear definition of what that actually means.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising other issues and the causes of the difficulties, including recruitment and retention. A number of head teachers in my constituency have highlighted the increasingly challenging times they are facing as they try to recruit teachers and get teachers who have not been trained. They are finding it difficult to fill vacancies and are having to pay expensive introduction fees to agencies. That is having an impact on morale and team spirit in schools.

[Rachael Maskell]

My hon. Friend raises so many of the issues that are impacting on school standards today and the vital profession of teaching. We really must take heed of what she has said.

My second bemusement is that the Government talk about the urgency of improving standards in education, yet they are legislating only for schools currently under local authority control. Why is it acceptable that there are 133 failing academies on this Secretary of State’s watch? That certainly raises the issue of why the standards in those academies are not being questioned in this Bill. It is important to improve the outcomes for all children through the Bill. Why are alternative providers—perhaps even local authorities—not insisted upon for those schools?

There is a lack of evidence behind the Bill. The Education Committee proved that there is absolutely no evidence of net improvements in standards in primary and secondary schools that have become academies. Ofsted determined that other initiatives such as the city challenge were far more effective at improving standards. One educationist said:

“schools fail for a number of reasons and simply changing their structure may not address the whole picture”.

Therefore, in view of the evidence, why has there been this ideological move to turn more schools into academies? Tragically, after listening to parents, governors and heads of schools in York, it seems that schools are now seeing this as an inevitable process and are therefore debating whether it is better to jump before they are pushed and to have some control of the process in the meantime—and that includes even our outstanding schools. They are concerned that they will lose more resources; schools in York are seriously underfunded as we fall below national funding levels. The plea I have heard from all heads in York who have raised the issue with me is that the Government should do everything they can to improve school funding as the priority for raising standards.

I could stray into talking about the funding issues in further education, which are also having an impact on our education system. It is pointless to mend one part of the education system without looking at the challenges that will come later. However, I will return to the mainstay of the debate: who is now in charge of our children’s education?

Parents spend most of their time with their children—school holidays, weekends, mornings and evenings—yet the draft legislation is trying to take them out of the education-making process and is instead inserting the very remote Secretary of State. If this Government are at all serious about devolution and parental engagement, they will give a real voice to parents in the future of their children’s education. No one can have the interest of their children’s success closer to mind. Every parent wants to do what is best for their children.

In York, as we have debated the academisation of Millthorpe school and Scarcroft and Knavesmire primary schools—outstanding schools, I might add—it is the parents who have wanted all the information to hand to understand the best path for their children. We are about to enter the same debate at Hempland primary. Why detach schools from parents? Surely we should be involving them more. Why, instead, place the powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, who may know about what happens in Loughborough but will not know about the issues faced in the corners of York Central?

We should strengthen the parents’ voice, empowering parents’ involvement in their children’s education, and listen carefully to the issues they raise. In York, parents have called for a ballot over the multi-academy trust conversion exercise—one that Labour would have granted, but now denied by the Tory-led coalition council. We have to give parents the information they need, trust their expertise and give them a voice and the respect they deserve. After all, localism must be about trust.

I want to mention teachers and support staff and to put on record my sincere thanks for their outstanding dedication to our children, as they work day and night, often under extreme pressure, in giving their all. Teachers and support staff—not just heads—must also have a say. They cannot be told how important their professionalism is in one breath and then not be trusted to make the best decisions for children in the next.

The whole Bill—whether the education or the adoption clauses—boils down to trust. Are we going to trust the true professionals and the parents to determine what is best for children, or place everything in the hands of the Secretary of State, who is, after all, not an educationist?