International Day of Education

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing the debate—I am sorry that I could not have been here earlier; I was in the Chamber.

I know the focus of the debate is on what Britain does when it comes education, but the other side of it is that many churches across all of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including in my constituency, have built schools and universities. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the good work done by the churches in my constituency? The Elim church has built a hospital, a health centre, a primary school and a secondary school, and it does work on job training for farming as well. All these things are done by people from Newtownards going to Malawi, to Swaziland and to Zimbabwe. That is an example of what can happen if we all look at some of the good things that are happening.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate is about the International Day of Education.

[Andrew Rosindell]

That was a fine intervention and I entirely endorse everything the hon. Gentleman said. One of the reasons Britain has had so much outreach around the world is because of our Christian foundations. It is so important to uphold and cherish our Christian heritage. Of course, Christian missionaries have travelled the world and established schools, hospitals, universities and churches, helping countries far and wide and people of all religions. I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s examples from his constituency; my constituency also has many churches that do excellent work and support causes around the world. I thank him for raising that point.

The Commonwealth is, I believe, a tangible force for good—I am sure we can all agree with that—and it should be central to any Government’s foreign policy. A voluntary association bound by shared language, legal traditions and educational standards embodies the very arguments that we are debating here in Parliament this afternoon. Above all, it provides Britain with a unique global reach that no other country enjoys. There are Commonwealth countries in every part of the world, including, let us not forget, our cherished overseas territories and Crown dependencies, such as the British Indian Ocean Territory, which should remain a British territory.

The Commonwealth has presented our great nation with an inheritance that is the envy of the world. But, obviously, soft power works only when it also serves the national interest. I am afraid that is where this debate has to be honest. Too often, international education policy has drifted away from British priorities and towards fashionable global causes, administrated by bloated bureaucracies with little regard for value for money or outcomes. My new party, Reform UK, believes in engagement with the world, but on Britain’s terms, not at our expense.

Last month, in my previous role as shadow Minister, I met with the British Council. It does invaluable work—I place that clearly on the record—but what I heard in that meeting should concern the House. Funding from the Foreign Office has still not returned to pre-pandemic levels. The British Council is being forced to consider the closure of up to 35 country offices, with 10 having already been lost during covid. Just £20 million would stabilise the British Council network, yet at the same time, this Government appear perfectly relaxed writing cheques running into the tens of billions for the handover of a British territory, thereby betraying British people, based on questionable interpretations of international obligations that deliver nothing tangible for the British taxpayer.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the hon. Member to stick to the motion.

[Sam Rushworth]

While the hon. Member is on that point, we are all aware of a letter that he wrote in 2020, in which he urged President Elect Joe Biden to do exactly what the Government are doing. Will the hon. Member say why his opinion has changed on the matter?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am so pleased that the hon. Member has raised that point. With your permission, Ms Vaz, I will answer it.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I have been advised that we have to stick to the motion, which is about the International Day of Education.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will certainly do so. To say one brief thing to the hon. Member, the letter was written to reflect the consensus of an all-party parliamentary group that I happened to be the chair of. The letter did not necessary reflect my opinions on everything. Self-determination should always determine decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. Could the hon. Member address the Chair, please?

[Andrew Rosindell]

I will go back to the point. We are told that there is no money for the British Council, yet somehow we find the cash for all sorts of other things: for housing the people who are coming to this country illegally; for the failing digital identification experiment; and for a long list of projects that do nothing to strengthen Britain’s position in the world or to promote education.

I am sure we will shortly hear warm words from the Minister about the importance of international education, and rightly so, but those words will ring hollow when the Government are presiding over an erosion of Britain’s ability to support education, influence and cultural engagement across the globe. What makes matters worse is that the cuts are focused on British Council offices in developed countries—the countries that need our support more than most. These are places where English teaching may not be the primary objective, but where influence, networks, science, culture and diplomacy absolutely are.

The British Council is certainly not just an English teaching charity. Its stated aims are to foster cultural, scientific, technological and educational co-operation with the United Kingdom. Undermining that mission weakens Britain. However, Reform UK is not calling for a blank cheque—far from it. If Britain is to help educate the world, that education must champion the United Kingdom and its values, free speech, our model of parliamentary Government and the rule of law. It must never put Britain second.

We should not be funding programmes to apologise for our history, undermine our institutions, or promote ideologies fundamentally hostile to our way of life. Nor should international education be used as a back door for uncontrolled migration or permanent settlement. Students should come to Britain to learn, and then return home as ambassadors for this country and assets to their peers. They should certainly not be numbers that disappear into a broken system that is already overstretched.

Ahead of the International Day of Education, I say that, yes, education changes lives, but it also helps to shape geopolitics. If we hollow out our soft power while pouring money into symbolic global gestures, we will wake up—as we have for some time—poorer, weaker and less respected. Reform UK believes that Britain should engage with all nations of the world and treat all countries with respect, working with all nationalities and peoples for the best interests of humanity, but always in Britain’s national interest. Our educational institutions and global networks remain world class—dare I say, the best—but the question is whether the Government are willing to end the bipartisan policy of managed decline and once again put British cultural influence back on the map.

--- Later in debate ---

[Monica Harding]

I agree 100%, and let us not forget that children are left behind in our country too. In my Esher and Walton constituency, we found that 1,800 children were missing school because of special educational needs and disabilities. Pupil referral units do brilliant work in bringing children back into mainstream education, which is good for our economy and for growth.

As I said, children around the world are missing education; the global aid cuts will increase that number and that rise will be concentrated in humanitarian hotspots. Education systems are being put under strain by the combined impact of conflict, climate shocks and humanitarian collapse. Last year alone, 242 million students in 85 countries saw their schooling disrupted by climate events.

Education is not a luxury; it underpins development, public health, gender equality and long-term stability, yet the global commitment is weakening just as pressures on education systems intensify. International education funding is projected to fall by $3.2 billion dollars this year—a 24% cut—placing an additional 5.7 million children at risk of dropping out of school. Cuts to the United States Agency for International Development alone are expected to push 23 million children out of education in the years ahead.

Girls will be hardest hit, with gender-focused education aid projected to fall by 28% this year, despite clear evidence that educating girls delivers some of the highest returns of any development investment. At the same time, primary education funding faces a 34% cut, with severe long-term consequences for literacy, numeracy and economic growth. Against that backdrop, the Government’s decision to cut the aid budget to the lowest level this century will only deepen the global education crisis, undermining long-term stability, prosperity and the UK’s influence abroad.

With aid projected to fall to 0.3% of national income by 2027, education funding is already being squeezed, and overseas education spending is set to drop by 40% this year alone. At the same time, one fifth of the aid budget is now spent on in-country refugee costs, crowding out overseas investment—precisely the spending that helps prevent instability and forced displacement in the first place.

Britain has not always stood on the sidelines. For many years, the UK was a leading global voice on education—particularly girls’ education—backing that leadership with sustained multilateral investment. Between 2015 and 2020 alone, UK aid helped more than 15 million children attend school worldwide.

I will now illustrate the scale of the crisis by giving examples from some of the worst-affected areas globally. Nowhere is the global collapse in education more stark than in Afghanistan, where more than 2 million girls are formally banned from secondary and higher education, making it the only country in the world to exclude girls from school legally. Meanwhile, learning outcomes for boys in the country deteriorate amid systemic breakdown. The collapse in education in Afghanistan has been worsened by the collapse of international aid: the United States has effectively disengaged from Afghanistan, while British aid to the country has fallen by nearly half over the past five years.

In the Gaza strip, over 650,000 children—almost the entire school-age population—have received little or no formal education for years, with around 97% of schools in the region having been damaged or destroyed. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which has long been the backbone of education provision for Palestinian refugee children, educated over half a million children in the Gaza strip and the west bank. However, it is now operating under severe legal and operational constraints imposed by the Israeli Government, including bans in east Jerusalem, the demolition of facilities, and restrictions on staff, utilities and partner NGOs.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where more than 7 million children are already out of school due to conflict and displacement, a flagship education programme for girls that was previously supported by British aid is set to close this year. That will affect 170,000 children in just one region, the vast majority of whom are girls, and is a direct consequence of our aid cuts.

In fragile and conflict-affected states, education is not only about future opportunity; it also provides safety, routine and dignity right now. Schools often deliver clean water, meals, sanitation and access to child protection services. Yet globally, school feeding programmes face cuts of over 50%, while education in emergencies has been reduced by 24%, with countries such as Haiti, Somalia and the Central African Republic losing aid that is equivalent to more than 10% of their public education budget.

It should not be, and does not have to be, this way. The Liberal Democrats believe that education must be a protected priority within the aid budget and not a discretionary extra. However, that requires reversing the aid cuts and setting out a clear path back to meeting the legally enshrined target of spending 0.7% of national income on aid. I respectfully point out to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) that although I agree with his words about the British Council and the potential cuts to its budget, and about the influence of British education, it is impossible to see how the British Council could be protected under the cuts that his party is proposing, whereby just 0.1% of GNI would be spent on ODA.

The International Day of Education is a reminder that behind every statistic in this area is a child whose future depends on political choices. If we are serious about reducing poverty, empowering women and building stability—which in turn will benefit the UK by providing economic trading opportunities in global markets, less compelling reasons for people to migrate to these shores, and more global stability and security for our citizens—education must move from the margins to the centre of our international priorities.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

We now come to the winding-up speeches. The Front Benchers have 10 minutes each.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz, and I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate.

What is education for? It is about so much more than remembering facts to pass exams. It is about lighting a spark in our children, and fostering their creative spirit and critical thinking to ensure that every child grows up with the life skills, the confidence and the resilience they need to be happy, healthy and successful adults, however that looks for each individual. In my view, that is every bit as important as academic achievement. In line with the theme of this year’s International Day of Education—the power of youth in co-creating education—we should all seek to create an educational environment that allows children the world over to learn and to ignite that spark.

The Liberal Democrats believe that education is the best investment that we can make in our children’s potential and our country’s future—indeed, every country’s future. It is the root of everything that follows in adult life: the potential for better health; the ability to work and earn a living; and the skills that enable people to participate in work, sport, craft, music and all the other things that enrich a human life. As the International Day of Education celebrates, education also has a significant role to play in enabling peace and development. The United Nations sustainable development goal 4 recognises education as a foundation for “escaping poverty” and for fostering peaceful, healthy societies.

When a girl goes to school, she is more likely not only to achieve higher educational outcomes—that much seems obvious—but to earn more and contribute to economic growth, and to participate in decision making in her community and country. She will be healthier, as will her children. She is less likely to be subject to child marriage, and to experience harmful practices and unwanted pregnancy.

Since the sustainable development goals were set in 2015, girls’ enrolment has increased by more than 50 million globally, with 5 million more girls annually completing each level of education up to upper secondary, but still more than 100 million girls of school age across the world are not in formal education today. One of the worst examples, as other Members have mentioned, is Afghanistan, where over 2.2 million girls are officially barred from attending school. Afghanistan is the only country in the world where girls and women are prohibited from accessing secondary and higher education. As families lose hope for their daughters’ futures, there has been a rise in forced and child marriages. Girls are kept hidden and are silenced. The Liberal Democrats want to see a foreign policy agenda with gender equality at its heart. The lives of women and girls must not be ignored in favour of trade or regional alliances, and we call on the Government to immediately restore full funding to educational programmes that support women and girls.

At this very difficult time, I am sure that I am not alone in being deeply troubled by the lack of visibility on the world stage of women who are helping to build peace and reconciliation in various conflict zones. As President Trump builds his so-called board of peace, it looks like there will be more male billionaires represented than women. Where are the women who will speak up for their local communities and civil society, and have a deep and vested interest in securing peace and stability for their children’s future?

Evidence shows that women’s participation in peace agreements increases the probability of them lasting at least two years by 20%, and lasting 15 years by 35%, yet in a UN study, decision making was left to a small group of male leaders in 15 of the 16 national dialogues examined. We see this every day on our TV screens, and I suggest that it starts with education. If we do not give girls the tools and knowledge to grow up to be part of that conversation, we embed that dangerous imbalance and perpetuate in boys the idea that theirs are the only voices that matter.

Looking globally, perhaps the lesser-told story is that an almost equal number of boys are out of school worldwide, and the biggest disparity is poverty related. In the poorest countries, 36% of students are out of school, compared with 3% in the richest countries, and almost three quarters of the global out-of-school population is in central and southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The astonishing and moving example recounted by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) shows how education can transform not only lives, but communities and countries.

The UK has an important role to play in reducing this stark international educational inequality. As proud internationalists, the Liberal Democrats believe that our country thrives when we are open and outward looking, and that applies so much to education. The Liberal Democrats value the UK’s central role in founding UNESCO, and we remain steadfast in supporting its mission to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science and culture. Most important, we want to restore the UK’s reputation as an international development superpower, by restoring spending to 0.7% of national income and re-establishing an international development Department. We would also recognise the role of education as a force for good, by committing to spend 15% of ODA on education in the world’s most vulnerable areas.

We should focus not just on what the UK can provide to the world on education, but on what we can learn from the world to improve our own system. The part of our education system that is in the worst shape is the way we educate children who have additional needs and disabilities. Broken by the previous Conservative Government, the SEND system is failing those children every single day. Years of cuts to school and council budgets have left parents struggling to secure the support their children need, and the system has become intrinsically adversarial, pitting councils and parents against each other in a situation that is not fair to either of them. It urgently needs reform. Although it is welcome that the Government recognise that, it is incredibly important that they get it right.

I urge the Government to look overseas for inspiration. On a recent trip to Ontario as part of the Education Committee’s inquiry into SEND, we saw a significant focus on communication right from kindergarten. Parents there do not have to fight for support because dialogue works, families are listened to, and behaviour is seen as a form of communication. In Ontario, they understand that we must listen to what our SEND children are trying to tell us and focus on inclusion rather than exclusion. Their approach is worlds away from our combative system. I therefore hope that when the Government come forward with their schools White Paper and set out SEND reform, they will draw on the success stories of SEND systems overseas, such as Ontario’s, to create a system that truly places children, young people, families and carers at its core.

Our education system should also draw on world-class, internationally recognised programmes that are used around the world, such as the international baccalaureate diploma programme. The IB sets a global benchmark for education and is trusted by universities, employers and educators worldwide. The Government’s recent decision to slash the large programme uplift funding, which allows state schools to provide the IB, simply makes no sense. The money saved is a drop in the ocean in the overall Department for Education budget, but by stripping that funding away, the Government are stealing opportunity and further entrenching the divide between our state and private schools. No Government who want to truly close the attainment gap would pursue that policy. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to reverse the cuts to the large programme uplift and ensure that any school wishing to deliver the IB diploma has the funding to do so.

Zooming out to look at our education system more broadly, it is fair to say that, like the rest of the world, we also suffer from persistent levels of educational inequality. Far too many children are leaving school without the skills they need to succeed. The disadvantage gap we see when children walk through the school door on day one grows throughout the education years and is wider at age 16 than it is at age five, according to research from the Education Policy Institute. It is down to us to fix this stubborn inequality. The Institute for Fiscal Studies notes that the gap in GCSE attainment between rich and poor households in this country has remained largely constant for the past 20 years.

To address the failings in our education system that are leading to inequality, the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to take steps including a tutoring guarantee for every disadvantaged pupil who needs extra support, high-quality early years education to help to close the attainment gap by giving disadvantaged children aged three and four an extra five free hours a week, and tripling the early years pupil premium to £1,000 a year.

We want a Government who fulfil their role in helping to reverse the worrying trends in global educational inequality, especially when it comes to women and girls, who look overseas at what the world can do for our own education system, and who properly address the educational inequalities that persist here in the UK. We must ensure that every child’s education provides the tools they need to thrive in every aspect of their life.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson, Lincoln Jopp—congratulations on your new post.

Oral Answers to Questions

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member raises important issues. We have seen horrific scenes in Afghanistan, and he will know that we gave £1 million yesterday. We have also seen terrible scenes in Sudan this morning. He will know that tackling the climate and nature emergency around the world is a priority for us, and we continue to support humanitarian work around the world. Of course, responding to disasters remains a key part of that, and we have demonstrated that repeatedly in a number of contexts, through the support that we have given.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)]

Could the Minister update the House on the reduction in assistance to places including Myanmar, and on democracy there, and the imprisonment of Daw Suu?

[Stephen Doughty]

We have to make very difficult choices as a result of the decision we made. We remain absolutely committed to international development. The detailed allocations will be set out in due course, and they will of course be informed by impact assessments before we publish multi-year allocations.

India-Pakistan: Escalation

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s long-standing attention to these issues. As Secretary of State for the Department for International Development, he sent a young DFID official to Pakistan in 2010, and I remember his commitment then. He is right that Pakistan has been plagued by terrorist threats within its own borders. It is a plague that has been of concern to its neighbours, but also most acutely to many Pakistanis, as we have seen devastatingly in recent months. They must do more to seek to tackle that threat and I have discussed that with Pakistani Ministers through the course of my ministerial duties.

India is, of course, right to feel outrage at the terrible attack of 22 April. There are now civilian casualties on both sides, and it is vital that we focus on de-escalation and trying to restore calm and regional stability.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for coming to the House so soon. Could he confirm when he or his Department last met the ambassadors of India and Pakistan, and will he ensure that the dialogue continues with them?

[Mr Falconer]

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the dialogue will continue. Of course, the Prime Minister was in touch with Prime Minister Modi just yesterday, and I was with the Pakistani Finance Minister and, indeed, the Pakistani high commissioner in London just an hour or two ago.

Gaza and Humanitarian Aid

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Throughout the past 12 months, the UK Government have failed to highlight or prevent the Israeli Government’s denial of international assistance into Gaza and their clear breaches of international humanitarian law. The UK has also failed to highlight the Israeli Government’s not complying with International Court of Justice orders, which require them to facilitate the unimpeded access to Gaza of United Nations and other officials engaged in the provision of humanitarian aid. The UK is failing to stand up for international law as Israeli forces are forcibly transferring civilians as we speak—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. This should be an intervention, not a speech, because many people are waiting to speak.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK must act urgently to enforce UK Security Council resolutions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. A number of Members wish to speak, so I will impose an informal three-minute time limit. Please be kind to each other so you can all get in.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this absolutely crucial and essential debate.

Last night, my hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mr Hussain) and for Birmingham Perry Barr and I attended a film showing by Al Jazeera at a cinema near here. The film showed very raw footage of the behaviour of Israeli soldiers in Gaza. It was about the destruction of life and of the appalling death toll of children, in particular, across Gaza. It showed soldiers cheering when they destroyed an entire Palestinian village. It showed pictures—devastatingly realistic in the horror they showed—of the torture of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons.

Afterwards, we had a question and answer session with a number of lawyers, medical people and so on. A doctor said that when she tried to enter Gaza to act as a doctor, she was restricted to one suitcase and told that she had to bring in three days’ water supply, have her own personal security and have a car and a driver with her at all times just to undertake her work. She said that there are very few hospitals working in Gaza, and the conditions are appalling and abominable. Many doctors are now not working in Gaza any more because they simply cannot get in; Israel controls all access and exit. The small number of very brave and wonderful doctors who were working there are now being forced to go elsewhere. The film showed the way in which Israel’s occupation has been entirely directed towards the destruction of Palestinian life—Palestinian buildings, schools, roads, hospitals and everything else.

I have never forgotten going to Beech primary school in Jabalia refugee camp many years ago—a wonderful school in a wonderful place with wonderful children. With joy, the children sat down and read, through translation, the poetry they had written about their lives, their hopes and what they wanted to achieve. We then went on to the roof of the school, and we could see the fence on one side and, not that far away, the sea on the other. To the north, we could see Ashkelon. We could hear the sadness in their voices when they said, “We are never going to be able to go anywhere. We are never going to be able to travel anywhere. We are forever prisoners in this school and our homes,” but at least at that time they had homes and a school. I have seen the footage and seen the films; the school is totally destroyed. Many of those children who I met, who were so happy in those days, are now deceased. Famine is there in Gaza. It is recognised as a famine around the world. Polluted water, inadequate food, inadequate medical supplies—it is an absolutely appalling situation.

Yes, obviously we have to demand all the aid that we can to go into Gaza—we would do that for any people anywhere in the world—but when there are more than 40,000 recorded deaths, and possibly 100,000 more bodies waiting to be discovered under the rubble, the answer has to be a political one. Why are we still supplying arms to Israel, knowing full well that those arms, in contravention of ICJ rulings, are actually being used to bomb civilian targets in Gaza?

War crimes are being committed before our very eyes on our televisions every night. It is up to our Government to show that they believe in international law. If they did, they would halt the supply of weapons to Israel, because they know full well that those weapons are being used to destroy human life, in breach of all aspects of international humanitarian law.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I expect to take winding-up speeches from the Front Benches at about 4.5 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

It does not need saying, because everyone with eyes can see it, but we cannot say it often enough: too many civilians have died over the last year in the middle east. It is so important that as few as possible follow them.

Before being elected, I worked at Save the Children, and I have worked on migration policy for the past 15 years. I am profoundly worried by the high levels of displacement we are seeing in the middle east. One million people have been displaced in Lebanon. Within Gaza, it is estimated that nine in 10 people have been displaced at some point. This is awful for those personally affected, but it is also profoundly politically destabilising to an already febrile situation, and it adds to the potential for escalation and therefore miscalculation.

We should be terrified of escalation and miscalculation. That is the biggest threat to the humanitarian situation, because we have already seen things escalate appallingly quickly. We must be clear: “escalate to de-escalate” is a falsehood, it is misguided and it will strategically misfire for all. Will the Government strain every sinew to avoid further escalation in the middle east? The reason is not just political or diplomatic; it is humanitarian. Too many have died already, and the only way to stop more joining them is by stopping escalation.

I know that the Minister will be constrained in what he can say today. I welcome the decisions on UNRWA, arms and the ICC, and the commitment to the rule of law, but can he reassure us that the Government’s aim in this situation is de-escalation for humanitarian purposes?

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

We will try to get everyone in. We have three people and I want to start wind-ups at 4.5 pm, so please keep it short.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Two minutes left.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hamish Falconer]

I will try to make a tiny bit more progress, and then I will hand back.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

You have a minute left, Minister.

[Hamish Falconer]

Then I will probably get to the end, in order to allow people to respond.

From the Prime Minister down, we will continue to call on all parties to act in accordance with international humanitarian law. Earlier in July, when he was visiting the region, the Foreign Secretary announced £5.5 million in new medical aid to field hospitals in Gaza; I think that was the subject of a question that was asked today. We are working to try to bolster medical capacity for patients. We think that is best done in the region, and we are frustrated by the impediments that still exist, particularly around children being able to access medical care and other aid.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I want to put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered humanitarian aid and Gaza.

Recognition of Western Sahara as Moroccan

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please stick to the motion?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Yes, I will. I was trying to explain why I feel so strongly that Morocco is a reliable partner for the United Kingdom. I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman was trying to make. Yes, we do go overseas on visits where we try to increase our understanding of other nations. We do not have a budget in the House of Commons to pay for those visits; we are guests of the foreign country, which is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

During our visit to Morocco, we had a very unsatisfactory discussion with the British ambassador on the telephone. As on many other occasions, the British ambassador tried to indicate that we cannot recognise Western Sahara because somehow it will impinge on or affect our relationship with our overseas territories, particularly the Falkland Islands. Yet, when I pressed the British ambassador to explain why and how that could be the case, no satisfactory response was forthcoming.

I seek clarification from the Minister on this point. Is it the fact that we cannot recognise Western Sahara as being Moroccan because there is some legal, constitutional or technical difficulty that might affect our relationship with our overseas territories? I cannot see that, given that France, which is in the process of recognising this issue, also has overseas territories. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that point. We need to recognise Western Sahara, as Israel and America have done. At the very least, we should follow Spain, the former colonial power, along with Germany and France in recognising that the autonomy proposals are the only way forward.

I have mentioned women’s rights; during my visit to Dakhla we had the opportunity to visit the new port that is being constructed in Western Sahara, and I was able to speak to Mrs Nisrine Iouzzi, who is the lady who runs the 1,600 engineers and construction workers at the port. It is going to be an extremely important link, not just for Morocco but for the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, including Niger, Chad, Mali and many other countries.

One way to deal with illegal immigration in Europe and to support Morocco is through a programme of support for illegal migrants, which I saw at first hand in Dakhla. The Moroccan Government are helping illegal migrants to settle there, training them and giving them opportunities.

Only four Arab nations have signed the Abraham accords, of course. The first contact between the Egyptians and the Israelis in the 1970s was brokered by Rabat, leading to Sadat’s visit to Israel and, ultimately, the peace accord. In 1994 the late King Hassan hosted a World Economic Forum, inviting Israelis and Palestinians to Casablanca for their first joint session at an international conference.

Professor Marc Weller, chair of international law and international constitutional studies at the University of Cambridge, has submitted a report to the Foreign Office. He was commissioned to evaluate the concept of why the United Kingdom may find it difficult to recognise Western Sahara, bearing in mind the intricate relationship we have with our overseas territories. I have met Professor Marc Weller here in the House of Commons on two separate occasions over the past few weeks. He submitted his report to the Foreign Office three weeks ago; I would be grateful if the Minister could recognise whether it has been received and say whether his officials will brief him on it.

Let us not forget that Professor Marc Weller, chair of international law and international constitutional studies at Cambridge, is one of this country’s leading academics on international law and works in the sphere on which I am pressing the Minister directly. He says that when he took on the commission he found it a potentially daunting prospect, yet after the research he has done he has come to the conclusion that recognising Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, and indeed recognising the autonomy proposals, would actually strengthen our relationship with our overseas territories and with the Falkland Islands. Professor Marc Weller from the University of Cambridge says the direct opposite of what we hear from our own ambassador in Morocco.

During my visit to Western Sahara, we came across representatives of 30 countries that have set up consulates in Dakhla, and more than 90 countries around the world have recognised Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I rather suspected that the right hon. Gentleman would ask that question. I will come to that later in my speech. I have not been, as yet, to the Tindouf camp in Algeria where the Polisario are, but I have received very serious allegations from various friends in the Moroccan Parliament. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Tindouf camp, because we have received very serious allegations about the promotion of terrorism within it. We have received transcripts of audio discussions from the Tindouf camp in which various members of the Polisario Front urge young female fighters to plant bombs in Dakhla and to try to murder their way back to the Western Sahara. That is a great concern if it is true, and I strongly urge the Minister to take up the matter with his Algerian counterpart to seek the veracity of the situation.

We here in the United Kingdom have had to deal with terrorism ourselves during the course of our lifetime, have we not? We have experienced bombings in this country by the IRA. We have experienced innocent men, women and children being murdered and bombed in Manchester, London and other places. Indeed, there was an attempt to assassinate the leader of my party in the Brighton hotel bombing. So we, of all countries, should recognise the difficulties that Morocco is facing, if the allegations are correct and it is true that the Tindouf camps are still being used by the Polisario as a hotbed to promote terrorist activities across the border in Morocco.

Finally, there are allegations from organisations, even including Amnesty International, which I am sure the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) respects and recognises, of human rights abuses in the Tindouf camps. I will put those allegations into the House of Commons Library. Will the Minister take that issue on board?

I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for talking about Morocco rather than just Western Sahara. When we discuss Western Sahara, I do not think we can discount why and how certain parliamentarians have so much confidence in Morocco, because of the strategic bilateral relationship we are creating with the country. I pay tribute to the Moroccan ambassador, who works tirelessly and very effectively on behalf of his nation in trying to educate us parliamentarians about the Moroccan perspective.

I recognise and understand that there are hon. Members with views different from my own, and I am sure we will hear those views later in the debate. From my perspective, I want the Minister to realise and recognise that in the remaining time we have in government, however short or long that is, this issue will not go away. We are falling behind our main competitors, such as Spain, France, Germany and America, and unless the issue is resolved satisfactorily for the Moroccans and unless we recognise Western Sahara, we will be jeopardising our relationship with them.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I expect to move to the winding-up speeches at 10.28 am. I remind Members to refer to their entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests at the start of their contribution.

Global Ocean Treaty

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the ratification of the Global Ocean Treaty.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee for allocating this slot to me. In preparing for this debate, I have been grateful for the many supportive emails I have received from constituents who are keen to see the global ocean treaty ratified. I am also grateful for the time that Lord Benyon took to hear me strongly pushing him to go faster with his policy. For clarity, although I have a private Member’s Bill that is due to be considered by the House, my remarks will focus not on that but on the process of and work needed to implement this landmark treaty.

This debate is one in which we all agree with the goal: that the UK should ratify the global ocean treaty, also known as the high seas treaty, which was agreed by UN negotiators on 6 March 2023 following nearly a decade of negotiations in which, although I know she would be too modest to mention it herself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) had a driving role. She has been supporting me with this issue and, I am sure, will make a worthwhile contribution later. The UK played a significant part in the negotiations. Our team of negotiators, who were supported every step of the way by Ministers committed to achieving an agreement—and, to be fair, by the main Opposition parties—should all be thanked today.

It is good to note that the UK Government was one of the first signatories to the treaty; however, it still has not been formally ratified by the UK. The treaty is a welcome update to the main international agreement on the oceans, which was adopted way back in 1982 and came into force in 1994: the UN convention on the law of the sea. That established the high seas as international waters in which all countries can fish, ship and do research, but did not include any specific protections for marine biodiversity. The global ocean treaty will change that by providing a legal framework for establishing marine protected areas, to protect against the loss of marine wildlife and share the genetic resources of the high seas.

With the current legal framework now out of date, every week that goes by without the new treaty in place sees the precious environment of our oceans put at risk. As soon as 60 countries ratify it, the treaty will enter into force and we can ramp up international action to protect our shared ocean, mitigate climate breakdown and safeguard the lives and livelihoods of billions of people worldwide. Hence, the UK should make progress to get the treaty ratified quickly and within the remaining period of this Parliament—[Interruption]—despite the objections of some people’s mobile phones.

One question that some listening will ask is: what is the potential impact once the treaty is enforced—what are we actually seeking to achieve? At its heart is the delivery of the 30 by 30 target. For background, the UN convention on biological diversity aims to promote biodiversity conservation and includes a focus on the identification of ecologically or biologically significant marine areas. In 2022, the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework was adopted at the 15th conference of the parties. It included a target to ensure that

“by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas…are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures”.

That is now commonly referred to by the much snappier title of the “30 by 30” target. The global ocean treaty is crucial to enforcing that pledge, because without the treaty there will be no legal mechanism to set up marine protected areas on the high seas. We could declare them, but it would be open to some to simply ignore them.

The UK has committed to 30 by 30 and, in an election year, it is worth noting that the three main parties of Westminster are broadly committed to the agenda. The UK is also the leader of the 77-country global action alliance that champions ocean action and conservation towards the target. In that area, we can also be proud to be practising what we are preaching to others within our own waters. Some 38% of UK waters are included in a comprehensive network of marine protected areas, and within the overseas territories more than 60% of waters are protected and sustainably managed within the blue belt. We have a good record, so we should want to show it by being one of the first 60 to ratify the treaty.

We must see the global ocean treaty in the context of the wider work being done to protect our oceans. A few years ago, the idea of mining the deep sea would have been confined to a sci-fi film. Now, technology makes it possible, and areas that until the last century man had never seen or touched, which harbour some of the most unique biodiversity, are under threat. I therefore very much welcome the announcement on 30 October 2023 that the UK would support a moratorium on the granting of exploitation licences for deep-sea mining projects by the International Seabed Authority. As a nation, we should be driving the need for the ISA to develop strong, enforceable environmental regulations, standards and guidelines before any mining commences, while adopting a generally precautionary approach to this novel practice.

Deep-sea mining could pose a new threat to the deepest parts of the oceans, but another threat has been building for decades, and has now touched even the deepest parts of our ocean and washed up on the most remote shores: plastic. I welcome the Government’s work to reduce the use of single-use plastics, some of which might be used only for a couple of minutes but last centuries in the environment. The fact that a litter pick in Torbay found crisp packets from the 1980s, with some from the 1960s being discovered nationally, speaks volumes about what a moment’s idleness can produce. I am pleased that the UK is a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution, which is committed to achieving an ambitious treaty by the end of 2024. We need a clear and strong set of global standards to tackle the problem. Each nation can make its own contribution, but it is inevitable that a global approach is needed.

I note the aim of ending plastic pollution across the globe by 2040, including by restraining and reducing plastic production and consumption to sustainable levels, promoting a circular economy for plastic, and managing plastic waste in an environmentally sound and safe manner. I still recall how difficult it was during my time in local government, back in the 2000s, to get a contract for the processing of plastic collected for recycling that could guarantee that the plastic would actually get recycled, rather than shipped abroad, often to take advantage of labour and environmental practices that were banned in the UK. At that time, it was also well known that many of the items collected could end up as landfill, and not recycled as claimed when they were collected. It was said that they had been recycled simply because they had been exported for that purpose.

I generally welcome the written ministerial statement of 25 March, which provided a welcome update on the current position on ratifying the treaty. As of that day, the agreement had gained 88 signatures and two ratifications out of the 60 needed—although I understand that the number of ratifications is now four, with Belize, Palau, Chile and the Seychelles having formally ratified the agreement. The treaty was laid before Parliament for scrutiny on 16 October last year. According to the statement:

“Before the UK can ratify international agreements, legislation needs to be in place to ensure that new obligations can be complied with…The provisions in the agreement on marine genetic resources…require a clear legislative framework, including substantive provisions in primary legislation.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 67-68WS.]

Hence my introducing to the House a Bill to provide a legislative vehicle for just that.

The Government’s statement also outlined how the treaty creates new obligations for UK businesses, in particular the pharmaceutical, agricultural technology, cosmetic and chemical sectors, along with science and research. It also outlined that

“thorough engagement with key stakeholders is underway to help to ensure that implementation is effective and avoids any unintended consequences.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 68WS.]

Few would argue with a statement like that, but we do not want any delay in getting vital protections in place for our oceans—hence our wanting to ratify the treaty as quickly as we can.

My meetings with the Minister in the other place and officials were interesting, and I welcomed the written statement formally confirming the Government’s intention to ratify. However, given the importance of this work and the impending general election, it is no surprise that many stakeholders are keen to see the Government, who were so keen to get the global ocean treaty in place, be the one that ratifies it—thereby ruling out its ratification being subject to any of the vagaries of future politics, which are inevitable in an election year.

I note that the statement last month indicated that the Government are preparing legislation, with their aim being to implement and ratify the treaty in time for the UN ocean conference in June 2025. I understand that that target is shared by some other countries, but as always I am keen that we set the bar. Hitting 60 countries as quickly as possible is important because the first conference of the parties will meet within the first year of the agreement entering into force. That is when the real work of the treaty can start.

I note that the UK is already part of the preparatory commission to be established by the United Nations to prepare for that conference. It has been indicated that the legislation will come in the first part of the next Parliament, which could be later this year but similarly could be nine months away. Yet would this be a top priority in a new Parliament in the way that it has clearly been for this one and this Government? The sooner we hit 60, the sooner the first conference of the parties will take place.

Given what I have already outlined, there are some specific points to which I would appreciate hearing the Minister’s response. First, what timeline have the Government set themselves for completing the work on drafting the legislation? Why could it not be done by summer for an autumn introduction? Secondly, what prevents a legislative slot being used in the latter part of this year, given the obvious wide support that the legislation could command across the House and in the other place and—although I do not want to speak for them—the likely support we would have from the Opposition for moving it through this place relatively quickly? Thirdly, from her engagement with other countries, when does the Minister expect the 60-nation mark to be hit?

The global ocean treaty is a landmark treaty. It is the basis of delivering the 30 by 30 target, which would protect vast areas of our ocean and the biodiversity within them. Over the past decade, the Government have helped to drive forward the creation and negotiation of the treaty. Individual Ministers have worked with determination to get it agreed and to put the UK’s signature on it. The final stage is ratification. While the pledge by World Oceans Day next year is welcome, surely the Government must want the ratification of this landmark agreement to be a landmark achievement they can cite to voters when the general election comes.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I expect to go to the Front Benchers just before 3 pm, to give Kevin Foster two minutes at the end to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz. The contributions today have been excellent. I was beginning to question my life choices when my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) started talking about whale poo, but he explained in great detail and breadth why this treaty is important and why it is rightly getting attention today. After decades of campaigning and about a decade of negotiation, it was a landmark moment when it was agreed, and there is no doubt that it will have a positive impact when it is finally ratified.

The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) said that we need 60 countries to ratify the agreement, and as we heard, it will provide a legislative framework for the first time. That is a crucial step if we are to achieve our 30 by 30 goal of protecting at least 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. All hon. Members present are committed to that, which is a rarity; there is great unanimity about the need for us to get on and ratify the treaty.

I have many constituents, as other hon. Members do, who asked me to take part in this debate, because they understand the importance of the ocean for protecting not just the diverse ecosystem in there but the wider planet. We have seen the effects of the failure to protect our environment in this country alone. A report from the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee published last year noted that, in the UK,

“41 per cent of species have decreased in abundance since 1970 while 15 per cent of species have been classified as threatened with extinction.”

The fact that the Government support the treaty and are undertaking the groundwork is welcome, but there are concerns about some wider aspects of Government policy, such as the progress of the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, which comes into potential conflict with the ambitions behind marine protected areas. New oil and gas beds can inflict serious harm on the marine environment. Exploration can cause oil spills, which harm marine wildlife and ecosystems. Underwater noise pollution from surveys also causes severe harm to marine mammals, commercially important fish, and invertebrates. There is also direct destruction of habitats such as deep-water sponge and cold-water corals, which form an important part of the natural cycle of our oceans.

Exploration can have a wide-ranging impact on marine life and ecosystems. The treaty is meant to limit those kinds of harms, so it is surprising that some policies seem to conflict with MPAs. Will the Minister comment on how that contradiction will be resolved? Questions ought to be raised about the place of MPAs in UK waters and the commitment to restore 70% of designated features to favourable conditions by 2042. It would be useful to know exactly what measures will be brought in to ensure that that is delivered.

We are short on time, so I will end on a positive note. The treaty is a step in the right direction, which has been decades in the making; we do not want to see more decades go by before we see the results. There are many reasons to be optimistic about where we are heading. The consensus that we have heard today is encouraging, but we have to be aware of wider Government policies. There is a lot of evidence that much more needs to be done to protect our seas—let alone the rest of the planet’s oceans. With 71% of the Earth covered by oceans, we have to pay as much attention to what is going on there as we do to dry land.

Last year, we saw record temperatures in the oceans. We cannot ignore the influence that has on the climate. The oceans absorb heat and carbon dioxide. Importantly, they drive weather patterns, the impact of which we are seeing regularly. Warming oceans also contribute to the increasing melting of ice, which causes sea levels to rise. Everything is connected. It is clear that with every passing year, the battle against climate change becomes a little harder to defeat. Protecting the oceans is a key part of that. Ultimately, it will determine whether we continue to survive as a species on this planet, which is why we really must get on and ensure that the treaty is delivered and begins to produce results.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I intend to call the SNP spokesperson at 2.58 pm.

Religious Persecution and the World Watch List

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the Minister for his response and, indeed, all colleagues who have contributed to the debate. We are all very much of one heart and mind that this important issue is one that needs to continue to be moved forward. It is in that vein that I say to the Minister that, yes, I am forceful in my role, but I make no apology for it—millions are suffering across the world.

There was almost complete unanimity but not quite. I want to come back on the position of the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) for the Opposition. I very much appreciate her presence in these debates and she contributes thoughtfully, but I want to quote some of the report from Open Doors on Nigeria and west Africa, because we have a difference on the level to which religious differences are a motivating factor in some of the violence there.

The report says,

“ISWAP (Islamic State West African Province)”

—the clue is in the title to an extent—

“continues to menace Nigeria’s north-east and many other parts of the country.”

According to Open Doors research:

“A decentralized armed group with ethnic ties to the pastoralist Fulani people, the Fulani Ethnic Militia”—

a separate group—

“attack predominantly Christian villages, abducting, raping and killing people, destroying buildings and harvests or occupying farmlands.”

The report quotes the July 2023 all-party parliamentary group on FORB report, “Nigeria: Unfolding Genocide? Three years On”. Based on evidence from a wide range of organisations, it concluded that FORB violations had “worsened” in the intervening years, with religious identity remaining “the key motivator” in the violence and Christian groups suffering “disproportionately”. It pointed to the fact that while a range of other factors are contributing to violence in Nigeria, from poverty to existing ethnic tensions, the flow of weapons and insecure borders, contributors to the report highlighted how the religious dimension was often obscured or played down by appeal to those other factors. I want to put that on the record.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. Could I just say to the hon. Lady that wind-ups are two minutes?

[Fiona Bruce]

I will conclude.

I therefore believe that with regard to the recent universal periodic review on Nigeria, while it was good that the UK’s recommendations highlighted blasphemy and the need for accountability for mob killings in Nigeria, it is regrettable that the UK did not mention increasing attacks on religious minorities, or freedom of religion or belief.

I close with a quote from Henrietta Blyth at the Open Doors launch of this year’s world watch list. She said:

“Never has it been more important for those of us who are free to worship as we wish to wake up to what is happening to our Christian family and those of other faiths around the world”

and to speak out.

Question put and agreed to.

That this House has considered religious persecution and the World Watch List 2024.

Israel and Gaza

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree with Cardinal Vincent Nichols’s version of events that took place in the compound of the Holy Family church?

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Lady will understand that I am not in a position to make that judgment, but I have heard with great respect what the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster has said.

Persecution of Buddhists: Tibet

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Ms Vaz. What happens if the Minister is not in his or her place? This is the first time this has happened to me since I have been a Member, since 2015. Others may have experienced that dereliction of duty, but I have not—and not on such an important subject.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

If another Minister or Whip cannot be found in time, the Parliamentary Private Secretary should be advised to take notes and rise at the end to make apologies on the Minister’s behalf. They should inform hon. Members that the Minister will respond to the points made. PPSs cannot make specific speeches on behalf of the Government, but I am sure the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), who I know is very assiduous, will make an assiduous note.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for that clarity. It is important that we have that; she is right. With these debates, we do not fill in a Thursday afternoon just because we have a bit of time; we fill it in because we have subject matter that is important. We are all here for that. We hope the PPS can take copious notes on all the important points and that the Minister, when he or she arrives, makes sure the responses that we seek are the ones that are placed on the record.

I am grateful that we are having this important debate on the persecution of Buddhists in Tibet. The people of Tibet are dear to me, so I find the topic to be of special importance. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We speak up for those of Christian faith, those with other faiths and those with no faith. Today, we are speaking for those with other faiths; we are speaking for those who have the Buddhist faith. Buddhists are among our stakeholders on the APPG and they are very important to us.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

I apologise for the delay, Ms Vaz. There may always be a challenge when digital and analogue aspects of parliamentary information do not align. That is something we will work on, but please accept my apologies for being late. To the point made by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has kindly provided me, as always, with a copy of his speech.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

May I clarify for the Minister? The summary agenda sets out the debate time as starting at 3 pm and in the House we go by the summary agenda.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Absolutely; that is why I apologise. My private office will be able to learn from the practicalities of that point.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I just want to say, Ms Vaz, that there was a bit of confusion because on the website, where it says “What’s on” in Parliament, it said 4 o’clock. People contacted me saying there was a debate at 4 o’clock. I just thought that it would be 3 o’clock and double-checked, because it usually is at 3 o’clock. That needs to be clarified in future.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

That has been noted by the very assiduous PPS, who pointed that out to us, and we will take it back.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Thank you, Ms Vaz. Just to say that the hon. Member for Strangford always provides a copy of his speech. That is hugely helpful and means that I know that I did not miss a single one of his words, even though I missed those first few minutes. I thank him, as ever, for sharing his speech. Other colleagues should consider doing that sometimes, as it is a helpful way to absorb and think more thoroughly about the issues being raised.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

You also have your PPS’s notes.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Of course. As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this incredibly important debate, for his continuing work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, and for his heartfelt presentation of the tragic Tibetan situation. I also thank hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions.

The Government place huge importance on protecting human rights around the world and on using all our diplomatic tools, alongside other countries, to highlight abuses where we see them. We are paying close attention to the deeply concerning situation in Tibet, where members of the Buddhist faith are enduring systematic violations of their rights. I am glad of the opportunity to reflect on the troubling situation and I will do my best to respond to all the points raised on the subject today.

We believe that long-term stability in Tibet is best achieved through respect for universal human rights and genuine autonomy for Tibet within the Chinese system. However, China is systematically violating Tibetans’ rights, including by restricting their freedom of religion or belief and, as colleagues have set out so starkly, their right to assemble and associate freely. We also have those troubling reports of forced labour.

Tibetans are banned from worshipping the Dalai Lama and there are reports of them being arrested for owning photographs of him, celebrating his birthday or watching videos of his teaching. The candidate identified by the Dalai Lama back in 1995 as the next Panchen Lama, who is a senior figure in Tibetan Buddhism, was forcibly disappeared by the Chinese authorities. Today, the authorities restrict the size of Buddhist monasteries in Tibet and there are multiple reports of their destruction, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).

It is Chinese law that all senior religious appointments must be approved by the authorities. The UK views the Dalai Lama as a respected spiritual leader, and as such he has visited the UK on a number of occasions and we will continue to do all that we can to encourage freedoms for religious and cultural expression in Tibet and across China. We view the appointment of the next Dalai Lama as a matter for the relevant religious authorities to decide in line with those freedoms of religion and belief. We continue to engage regularly with international partners and non-governmental organisations to discuss the situation in Tibet and to continue to raise awareness.

Meanwhile, reports continue to document the suppression of Tibetan cultural, linguistic and religious identity. Earlier this year, UN special rapporteurs found that around a million Tibetan children have been separated from their families and placed into Government-run boarding schools with no access to traditional Tibetan learning. Rural schools have been closed and students have been forced to attend schools far from their family homes.

The Chinese authorities use enforced disappearances to silence critics and suppress dissent in Tibet. We are aware of reports of politically motivated detentions and arrests of Tibetans, as well as mistreatment in detention. UN special procedure mandate-holders have written to the Chinese authorities regarding the disappearances of Tibetans. There are estimated to be more than 700 political prisoners held in Tibetan areas and monks in particular are targeted for persecution. Reports continue to document the mass collection of DNA and other biometric data in Tibetan regions.

On forced labour, the Government are aware of UN reporting from April 2023 on allegations of so-called “labour transfer” and “vocational training” programmes in Tibet, which are being used “as a pretext to undermine Tibetan religious, linguistic and cultural identity” and “to monitor and politically indoctrinate Tibetans”.

Oral Answers to Questions

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

It is always a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend, who has an office next to mine in the Foreign Office. May I thank her for her comments about the publication of the White Paper? The way in which it has been received around the world demonstrates renewed energy and vigour. I hope that it shows Britain’s reinvigorated leadership on those important matters, and, of course, value for money for our taxpayers.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The White Paper also talks about development diplomats. How many will be trained and what will be the cost?

[Mr Mitchell]

How many—

[Valerie Vaz]

Development diplomats—they are in the White Paper.

[Mr Mitchell]

Yes, the right hon. Lady is quite right: we are increasing the number of development diplomats—I thought she mentioned something about water, but I may have misheard. The point about the White Paper is that it sets out very clearly the aims and aspiration that Britain has to drive forward the sustainable development goals and ensure that we increase climate finance at this critical time. She will be pleased to have seen that and will note that we are now driving forward that agenda.