Human Rights and Religious Minorities: Sudan

Debate between Robert Syms and Lyn Brown

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Robert. I am truly grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate, because a debate about democracy and human rights in Sudan has been a long time coming, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) rightly said. There has been genuine but limited progress on these issues following the Sudanese revolution in 2019, but the 2021 military coup put many of the advances on hold and into sharp reverse, and serious abuses continue. Like the hon. Member for Strangford, I will start by focusing on freedom of religion and belief.

The law against conversion from Islam was repealed in 2020, and many guarantees made in the draft transitional constitution before the coup are repeated in the recent political framework agreement, which is a very positive sign. The fifth of the proposed general principles specifically guarantees freedom of belief and religious practices. However, as we have heard, abuses continue—some are very recent indeed.

On 16 December, a church that reportedly had been standing since 1991 was burned to the ground. The community has very little confidence that justice will be done, particularly because the person suspected of the arson is a soldier. As we have heard, that is not the only incident. I have been really fortunate to hear directly from Sudanese people with expert knowledge of the situation since 2019. I am told that the official estimate of the number of Christians in Sudan is 5 million, but the true figure could be more than double that. Only 150 churches are officially recognised, although there are possibly around 2,000. Of those 150, just 30 new churches have been recognised over the past 67 years, and attempts to rectify that before the coup were thwarted. The fact that the vast majority of churches are regarded as illegal makes it more likely that they can be subjected to arson or violence with impunity.

I have also been told that inequality before the law is widespread. That applies to many communities, including Christians, Baha’is, Jews and Muslim minority groups such as Shi’a Muslims and the Republican Islamic Movement. Mosques are offered services, such as electricity and water, for free; churches are not. The Koran is exempted from import taxes; Bibles are not. Blasphemy laws are used solely to prevent criticism of Sunni Islamic figures and beliefs.

We know that widespread discrimination nurtures a culture of inequality: it gives extremists and those who seek to benefit from increased division the cover that they crave. However positive the guarantees in constitutional declarations, obtaining genuine protection for religious minorities will require sustained action. We know the issue of human rights in Sudan goes far wider than freedom of religion and belief, and Sudanese people from the Sunni Muslim majority are regularly targeted. Since the miliary coup in 2021, more than 100 protestors have been killed, and deaths continue with no accountability. On 9 February, a 15-year-old boy was killed while taking part in a protest. Terrible intercommunal violence continues across parts of Sudan, including in Darfur. The UN estimates that 991 people were killed in that violence during 2022 alone.

Meanwhile, over the full year, the UN’s humanitarian response received just 43% of the funding it needed and it called for. That unmet need, in and of itself, creates circumstances for continued conflict between communities, but progress on the humanitarian needs of the people of Sudan will not happen without the advancement of human rights, justice and democracy.

Rape and sexual assault, in common with many other forms of violence, have been constantly used as a political weapon to intimidate activists and officials. Just last month, on 6 January, I understand a 15-year-old girl was kidnapped, raped and thrown under a bridge in Khartoum. Sudanese women’s groups believe she was targeted because her father had worked on the committee to dismantle the corruption of the former al-Bashir regime. That is just one of the many horrifying cases of targeted sexual violence to shut down women’s voices and participation. It must not succeed and we must not under-estimate how determined some in Sudan are to hold on to their unaccountable, corrupt wealth and power at all costs.

Equally, there are some on the international stage that see obstructing the transition to democracy as being in their interests. We know Russia is actively seeking concessions, including a Red sea port, and there are credible reports that the Wagner Group is operating within the country. We see a pattern in other countries: Putin backs Wagner to offer a brutal form of internal security, and in return they plunder the gold and other natural resources in the country in secret.

Despite all the threats they face, the courage and resilience demonstrated by Sudanese people over recent years gives me so much hope that justice will eventually prevail. I believe we must continue to set out a clear position to all political forces in Sudan and in the wider region, because we are UN Security Council penholder on Sudan, which gives the UK a core diplomatic role. The UK must not support the unlocking of international finance and co-operation to the authorities until concrete progress is made on democracy and accountability, led by a civilian Government.

It is important to preserve unity with our international partners, which is why engagement and co-ordinated work with the African Union and our fellow members of the Troika, Quad and wider friends of Sudan group must be preserved. Sustainable peace and development in Sudan will not occur without action to make stated commitments to human rights a reality for all. Political prisoners need to be released, and the rights of Sudanese people who continue to protest against military rule need to be respected.

Finally, as I said in my speech this Holocaust Memorial Day, this year marks the 20th anniversary of the start of acts of genocide in Darfur. The work of the International Criminal Court continues to be obstructed; that must end. Impunity in Sudan has persisted for decades, which only underlines the importance of securing justice within the current transition. Supporting accountability requires focus and resources. In practice the only international capacity for monitoring abuses has been the UN in Sudan, but, like much of the international community, it has understandably been focused on securing transition rather than pressing for day to day progress on human rights.

I hope the Minister can tell us what is being done to support human rights monitoring with resources. Where progress is not being made and the perpetrators of human rights abuses are being protected by those in power, the Labour party believes that targeted sanctions should be used to prevent impunity. When it comes to the leadership of the central reserve police, that has not happened, so I hope the Minister will be able to set out how we are backing our support for the transition to peace, democracy and justice in Sudan with action. Will she take back to the Foreign Secretary our call for the targeted sanctions by the United States to be mirrored?

[Sir Robert Syms (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister that Jim Shannon will need a minute or so to wind up at the end of the debate.

Legislative Reform Order (Epping Forest)

Debate between Robert Syms and Lyn Brown

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I rise as Chairman of the Regulatory Reform Committee. The draft order and the explanatory document were laid before the House on 21 March under section 14(1) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. The Government recommended that the draft order be subject to the affirmative procedure, under section 17 of the Act.

The draft order proposes an insertion into the Epping Forest Act 1878 that would allow the Metropolitan Police Authority to erect a muster, briefing and deployment centre on Wanstead Flats for up to 90 days. As we have heard in the debate, it will be quite a busy centre, with perhaps upwards of 3,500 police officers on certain days of the Olympics, providing security at the Stratford centre, the Olympic stadium and various other stadiums in that part of London.

The Home Office has reassured the Committee that the draft order is a temporary provision that constitutes no precedent, as we have heard from the Minister. It believes that it is the most efficient way to ensure the safety and security of the 2012 games, following a site selection process that found Wanstead Flats to be the most suitable location. Clearly, we are all concerned about security.

The Committee considered the draft order on 3 May. It concluded that the affirmative resolution procedure was appropriate and recommended that the draft order be approved. The report was agreed, but following a Division in which the Committee divided five to three. Under the procedures of the House, when there is a Division the matter has to be referred to the Floor of the House.

I think it fair to say that members of the Committee were sympathetic to local Members, particularly the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), who wanted to attend the Committee but could not under the Standing Orders of the House. He made representations himself to the Metropolitan Police Service and the consultation, and I hope that he will catch your eye in a moment, Mr Deputy Speaker, to represent the views and concerns of his constituents. The debate provides an opportunity for local Members to make their concerns known.

As we have heard, a number of concerns were expressed in our report, such as the fact that the consultation document contained an avoidable error.

[Lyn Brown]

The hon. Gentleman is an honourable man. Does he not agree that given the state of the consultation, local people have a right to be concerned? Does he also accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) that how and where the £170,000 will eventually be spent is a concern, given the botched consultation?

[Mr Syms]

There were clearly problems with the consultation, although it is true that, as the Minister said, there were only 31 replies. However, my Committee still found that it wished to approve the order, and I hope that the House will do so today. It seems to me that there would be a very good reason for local Members to write to the Home Office to put pressure on the Metropolitan police, and indeed the City of London corporation, so that there is some local involvement in how the £170,000 is spent. Once the site is repaired, if it is used by many of the hon. Lady’s constituents, they clearly ought to be consulted about what improvements are made. That seems to be a matter for another day, but I am glad that she has put her point on the record.

Although the difficulties with the consultation were unfortunate, the Committee concluded that that should not inhibit the progress of the draft order and did not alter the fact of the site’s utilisation. There was concern about the adequacy of the consultation, because the wording used in the consultation document was potentially deficient. Wanstead Flats was described as

“essential to ensuring the safety and security of the Games”,

which was a bit of an overstatement, even though it was clearly the preferable site.

The consultation was poorly conceived, which raised unnecessary worries among local residents, and took place nearly a year after Wanstead Flats was identified as the preferred site. It was limited in scope to rule out comments on alternative sites, and the document contained a factual error about the criminal sanction. The poor design and preparation of the consultation gave the impression that the process was a done deal, and that the legislative reform order was being used as the easiest way to reach the desired solution. That is one reason why we are having this debate on the Floor of the House today.

The fact that the Metropolitan Police Service is clear that it requires the site for the policing of the Olympics is a persuasive, but not conclusive, reason for the narrow terms of the consultation, as it has no statutory function in relation to the Olympics. Direct responsibility for the centre lies with the Metropolitan Police Service, which formulated the site criteria. Its assessment against those criteria found that Wanstead Flats was the only site to meet all of them. However, it would have been more appropriate if the consultation document had taken that assessment as a starting assumption that the Department expected to adopt unless persuaded otherwise.

As we have heard, the consultation generated 31 responses. The explanatory document dealt with them in a rather perfunctory manner and should have contained a more detailed response and information. Despite the concerns raised, the report concludes that the Department has “respectably arguable” grounds for believing that its consultation was adequate.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the House of Lords reported on the draft order on 4 May. It, too, considered the Government’s consultation to have been “very poorly handled”, and drew this to the House’s attention, while concluding that the draft order was appropriate to proceed. As we have heard, a Hybrid Instruments Committee of the House of Lords considered the draft order on 23 May, concluding that there ought not to be a further inquiry by a Select Committee into any of the matters complained of by the eight petitioners.

There were genuine concerns, which is why the matter has been referred to the Floor of the House, so that local Members can raise those concerns. I am sure that there are further discussions to be had on another day about the details of the improvements to the site and the £170,000. However, I hope that the House concludes that the site in question is the most appropriate and will support my Committee’s decision by voting for this order today.