Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kashmir: Self-determination
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for self-determination in Kashmir.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to be given the opportunity to have this very important and timely debate in this Chamber today, because for millions of Kashmiris across the world and the UK, the question of self-determination is not some distant, abstract foreign policy matter; it is about families torn apart, homes bulldozed, voices silenced, human rights abused and a people denied the most fundamental democratic right—the right to choose their own destiny; the right to self-determination. As someone who has campaigned on this matter for over a decade in this House, may I begin by saying very plainly that the world has failed the people of Kashmir and continues to do so?
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend speaks with great passion. He says that the world has failed the people of Kashmir, and I agree. Does he agree that no longer should politicians in this place view the matter of Kashmir as some kind of bilateral issue between Pakistan and India? In fact, it is a matter for international law, and our Government and our country have a special historic duty not to wash their hands of the matter of self-determination for the people of Kashmir, which is their birthright.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Let me put down the marker now: interventions are interventions, not speeches.
Imran Hussain
I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. He is right, and I will come on to the substance of the point he makes shortly.
Kashmir remains one of the world’s most heavily militarised zones and longest unresolved international disputes. Today’s problems have their origins in the unfinished business of partition in 1947, and it is important to start there—a moment in history when Britain played a direct and undeniable role. In 1948, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 47, which mandated a free and fair referendum to allow the sons and daughters of Kashmir to determine their own future and their own destiny.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
My hon. Friend speaks with great moral clarity. Does he agree that, given that the matter has been decided by the UN, lasting peace in the region cannot be achieved without dialogue that includes the voices and aspirations of the people of Kashmir themselves?
Imran Hussain
As ever, my hon. Friend makes a fine point. She is absolutely right. Let us make that point clear: only the Kashmiris themselves can determine their own destiny. It is not a matter for India, for Pakistan or for any other country.
As I was saying, the Kashmiris were promised a referendum 70 years ago. That referendum never happened. Their calls for justice have gone unanswered, their fundamental human rights have been violated, and their right to self-determination has been repeatedly denied. For more than 70 years, Kashmiris have continuously endured persecution, oppression and injustice. Throughout the period, draconian and repressive laws, including the Indian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, have been used to grant sweeping powers to the Indian security forces, allowing detention without trial, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. All three of those Acts are illegal under international law, yet we continue to have silence from the international community.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend on his continued advocacy on this subject. Does he agree that international humanitarian law is clear that the protection of civilians is not optional, that the UK has deep and historic ties to Kashmir and its people, and that we are therefore not fulfilling our obligations? Given that context, does he agree that we need to do more?
Imran Hussain
I absolutely agree. We have a deafening silence and lack of action. One cannot choose between human rights abuses. In Kashmir, we continue to see human rights defenders, journalists and political leaders being targeted relentlessly. Political prisoners are denied the right to a fair trial and used as an example of what happens when Kashmiris dare to speak the truth. That is not the rule of law; it is state-sponsored persecution designed to break the will of an entire people.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution. Could explain he explain what actions the UK Government could best make to assist the Kashmiri people to get self-determination?
Imran Hussain
That is the very point that I am coming to. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) said, for decades successive UK Governments have hidden behind the policy and line that Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. Let us start by saying clearly that Kashmir is not a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan but an international issue. The first thing the Government can do is start recognising it as that. The roots of the situation continue to be within UN Security Council resolutions that Britain helped to draft and promised to uphold.
When a people are denied their right to self-determination, when human rights abuses are systematic and documented and when—this is another point—two nuclear states sit on a knife edge, the world, and especially the UK, cannot wash its hands of responsibility.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Lady arrived after the start of the debate. I will allow her to intervene on the strict understanding that she remains for the entirety of the debate. That goes for any other Members who arrived after the start of the debate.
Anna Dixon
Thank you, Sir Roger, and please accept my apologies. I thank my hon. Friend, who is a great advocate, for taking an intervention. In the great city of Bradford we share a large British-Kashmiri community, whom I met recently. Will he join me in calling for greater international diplomatic efforts to try to bring a resolution to the situation and give the Kashmiri people the self-determination for which they have been waiting for so long?
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come to that firmly when I get to my asks. The international community cannot continue to ignore Kashmir for the whole number of reasons I have outlined.
Let us to turn to the current situation, which has deteriorated sharply since August 2019 when the authoritarian, right-wing Modi Government unilaterally and unconstitutionally revoked articles 370 and 35A. That stripped Jammu and Kashmir of what little autonomy it had, in direct violation of international law, of commitments made to the people of Kashmir and of decades of United Nations resolutions. The consequences were immediate and devastating, with a 150-day communications blackout, mass detentions of political leaders, violent crackdowns across the valley, journalists silenced and civil society dismantled. It transformed communities into open-air prisons.
Families were separated, businesses destroyed, young people denied education and everyday life suffocated under curfews and lockdowns. Nearly six years on, the prosperity and normality that was promised never materialised. Instead, we see further repression and further deepening of the injustices. Now, with the domicile rules, we are seeing blatant attempts to permanently change the demographics of Kashmir. Let there be no doubt: the right-wing Modi Government have one aim, which is to try to quash the Kashmiri struggle for good.
This is a timely debate, as I said at the beginning. While we mark UN Human Rights Day today, let us be clear that Kashmir’s human rights abuses are not isolated or occasional events; they form a systematic pattern of intimidation and control. Arbitrary detention, custodial torture, forced disappearances and collective punishment continue with impunity. Women have endured gender-based violence at shocking levels, with over 11,000 documented cases since 1989—an appalling statistic that speaks to the use of sexual violence as a weapon of repression.
Political prisoners remain behind bars without any due process. Khurram Parvez, a globally respected human rights defender, has spent years in prison for documenting abuses. Yasin Malik has been convicted in proceedings widely condemned for lacking fairness and transparency by every human rights organisation and now faces the death penalty. Many others, including Asiya Andrabi and Irfan Mehraj, remain imprisoned under draconian legislation. Political disputes are criminalised with one aim: to silence legitimate voices for self-determination. Kashmiris continue to suffer under a system that strips them of dignity, voice and agency.
In Azad Kashmir, where conditions are arguably much better and where there can be simply no comparison with the violence and bloodshed faced daily by Kashmiris on the Indian side, we have recently seen, very concerningly, a region-wide lockdown triggered by deep public grievances and followed by the suspension of mobile internet and even landline services. Markets have been closed and transport halted. Heavy deployments of security forces have created real fear and uncertainty for ordinary people. Those events have tragically led to the deaths and casualties of many. The current dispute started with Kashmiri grievances and demands, at the core of which were basic rights such as the right to a decent education, decent healthcare, fair pricing for electricity, and basic human rights that should be granted to all people.
Of course, I welcome the de-escalation of the situation and the positive negotiations between the Pakistani Government, the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and the grassroots movement, the Awami Action Committee. I thank all colleagues who signed the letter from the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, and I am grateful to those Governments for liaising with it. But let me make it absolutely clear that the human rights of Kashmiris must be respected and that all the reasonable demands of the Awami Action Committee must be met in full and implemented in full.
The central point of this debate is our moral, legal, historical and political duty. The United Kingdom is not a neutral observer in this conflict. Our decisions at partition, our diplomacy in the early decades and our vote for United Nations resolutions created obligations that remain unfulfilled to this day. We helped to shape Kashmir’s unresolved status, and therefore we bear a share of the responsibility for resolving it. We cannot speak of human rights in other parts of the world while telling Kashmiris that their rights are a matter for someone else to address. That is completely absurd and a clear abdication of our responsibilities.
We cannot pick and choose when it comes to human right abuses, yet for decades successive Governments have done just that. Governments of all stripes since the early ’70s have relied on the easy line that this is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, which has allowed us to wash our hands of moral, legal or political obligations. Let me be clear: this is not a bilateral issue and never has been. At its heart are international law and the right of Kashmiris to self-determination.
Action is required. Silence is not neutrality; frankly, it is complicity. The world has allowed UN resolutions on Kashmir to sit gathering dust for decades, and that must end. The UK must match its words with action by raising human rights concerns at every diplomatic level, demanding the release of political prisoners, insisting on independent access for journalists and observers, and ensuring that any future trade negotiations with India contain binding human rights conditions. Trade cannot trump human rights, and economic deals must never come at the expense of the Kashmiri people’s dignity, safety and democratic rights.
I have some simple questions for the Minister. First, do the Government and the Minister, who speaks for them, accept that the UK has a moral, historical and legal responsibility to support the full implementation of United Nations resolutions? Will he confirm that the UK Government’s position is to support the Kashmiri people’s birthright to self-determination through a free and fair plebiscite? Will the Government commit to ensuring that future trade negotiations with India do not come at the expense of human rights, accountability or justice, as trade cannot be prioritised over the rights of people who have been oppressed for generations, or do we apply a different set of rules to Kashmir?
The key question that we, our Kashmiri constituents and everybody up and down the country who champions human rights are asking is: what is the Government’s stance on whether this is a bilateral or an international issue? When political parties go out campaigning in our constituencies, big promises are made on issues such as Kashmir. Frankly, people are fed up with promises made by successive parties and Governments, all of which have gone on to betray the Kashmiri people.
Do the Government have the moral courage to stand by and defend their obligations under international law, to provide a case that moves away from the age-old wrong argument—that this is a bilateral issue—to one that recognises it as an issue deep-rooted in international law? That is the central question for the Government and the Minister. Along with hundreds of thousands of people watching, I would appreciate a straight answer.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman was generous in giving way, but he has eaten into the time available. Eight Members who wish to speak have submitted names: by my miserable mathematics, that works out at about four minutes a head. Anybody who has not put in their name ahead of the debate is unlikely to get called. I call Ayoub Khan.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Thank you, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for his passionate statement and for securing the debate.
We speak about a valley that has carried the weight of unfulfilled promises for generations. Kashmir is not a footnote in history; it is a living community whose rights were affirmed by the United Nations and yet remain suspended in political frost. According to UN resolutions, the people of Kashmir were promised the right to decide their own future through a plebiscite. That right has not expired with time; it still stands like an unopened door. As has been stated, we must be clear that Kashmir is not a bilateral quarrel, to be tucked quietly into the filing cabinets of the two states. It is an international issue rooted in international commitments.
Whether it wishes to or not, the United Kingdom sits inside the story. The partition that sculpted two nations also abandoned the Kashmiri people to a limbo not of their choosing. Our responsibility is not sentimental; it is legal, historical and moral. Economic partnerships must never become soft pillows under which we smother our legal obligations. Human rights abuses in Kashmir continue in the dark corners where accountability rarely reaches: sexual violence, disappearances, extrajudicial killings and detentions without trial or legal counsel.
Those are not allegations to be met with diplomatic murmurs; they demand consequences. The UK must move beyond symbolic gestures and consider targeted sanctions, just as we have invoked international law in response to atrocities elsewhere, including the mass killing of Palestinians. Justice cannot be selective. The human reality along the line of control rarely makes headlines. Families divided by an invisible frontier, guarded by soldiers, live as if they are stitched to opposite pages of the same book, unable to meet, to mourn, to celebrate. That is unnecessary cruelty disguised as security.
I call on the Minister to reflect on one issue on which the Government can deliver: the transformation of the line of control from a barrier into a bridge. Let designated crossings be open for humanitarian movement and for families tied by history, culture and ancestry. The United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan can support and safeguard the crossings. Compassion can be supervised; it does not need to be suppressed.
The promise of a plebiscite is not a relic; it is the cornerstone of Kashmir’s right to self-determination. The UK Government must recognise that this is no longer a bilateral matter, but a global obligation. When India, for example, threatens to undermine the Indus waters treaty through collective punishment, the UK should send a firm signal that the international community will not tolerate such tactics. We ask for action and not eloquence, for courage and not choreography, and above all, for the rights of the Kashmiri people to be finally honoured.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing this important debate on such an important day. In south Asia, the long-drawn dispute over the state of Jammu and Kashmir remains a hanging fireball between two hostile nuclear neighbours, India and Pakistan, bringing human misery in the form of wars over the issue and continuing to threaten regional and global peace.
The international community has failed Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir for the last 78 years by not implementing the plebiscite determined from the United Nations Security Council resolution 47. Instead, for the past 78 years, we have seen the Indian Government take advantage of that failure by subjecting Kashmiris to unlawful killing, torture and multiple human rights violations.
Over half of my constituents in Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley are from south Asia, and the majority are Kashmiris. The treatment of Kashmiris in the Indian-occupied Kashmir has worried them for many years. As a born Kashmiri, seeing the level of brutality and oppression by the Indian-occupied Kashmiri forces is absolutely devastating. It is just as distressing that the Government are not taking matters into their own hands and pushing to make the plebiscite happen.
The United Kingdom now has to step up to right the wrongs against the Kashmiri people. United Nations resolution 47 not being implemented is unfinished business for this Government, considering that the resolution was determined when the United Kingdom was under a Labour Government. It was a Labour Government then and it must be a Labour Government now who help the Kashmiri people in their fight against the injustices caused by Modi and his Bharatiya Janata party-led Government. The UK Government must now push for the long-overdue plebiscite and hold India accountable for the actions against Kashmiri people.
The silence of the international community cannot go on any longer and cannot be unrecognised. The world cannot afford to ignore the Kashmiri people any longer. It is a matter of humanity and justice. The goal for the Kashmiris has always been self-government and the right to self-determination. The right to self-determination is not a privilege; it is a fundamental human right, and the United Kingdom must do everything in its power to help Kashmiris towards that.
My role is not to take sides by being pro-Pakistani or anti-India. As a born Kashmiri, I believe that it is my duty to highlight the abuses of human rights violations to this House. Even after seven decades, people of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir are waiting for the right of self-determination promised by the United Nations. Notwithstanding over 25 United Nations resolutions calling for the solution to the dispute, India is still reluctant to grant Kashmiris the right of self-determination, and the world cannot stand by and allow that to happen.
The Scottish people were rightly afforded a referendum to express their desire for independence, and the UK had a referendum on remaining in or leaving the EU. Kashmiris are not begging for freedom, and neither will they beg for something that is their fundamental human right.
Seven decades later, the people of Kashmir are still waiting. This is not a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. The international community needs to take responsibility, and the British Government need to take responsibility. We should not have trade agreements with India while the abuses continue, because that will be seen as rewarding one of the biggest—if not the biggest—oppressors of human rights in the world.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I will be brief, because a lot of colleagues want to get in. I compliment the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on his superb presentation, which showed passion and knowledge of the issue.
The fundamental issue, of course, is the one that the hon. Gentleman hit on many times: this is not a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, but an international issue that comes from all that went on in the process of the decolonisation of British India in 1947-48. It was India that referred the issue to the United Nations for resolution, so India’s constant denial that it is a UN matter fits rather strangely with Indian political history ever since that time.
The effects of the partition of Kashmir and the line of control have been beyond dramatic for both India and Pakistan. The partition encouraged massive levels of arms expenditure in both countries, doing enormous damage to the social infrastructure of both societies, in the ’50s, ’60s and ever since. It then encouraged both countries to develop nuclear weapons and to leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The inadequacy of British behaviour in the 1940s led to the militarisation of the whole of the subcontinent; the loss of thousands of lives in successive conflicts between India and Pakistan, as well as with China; and, of course, the ever presence of nuclear weapons. If we look at India’s and Pakistan’s expenditure on defence compared with the expenditure that should be going on education and social needs, we begin to see the consequences of the issue.
Many people in this country feel very strongly about this issue. They are from Kashmir themselves, or they have grandparents, parents and many relatives in Kashmir; there is a very close relationship. They feel angry—the hon. Member for Bradford East put this well—that at every election, when party leaders happen to descend on Birmingham, Bradford or parts of London, they are given a note by their offices saying, “Say something about Kashmir, because it’ll go down well.” They do, and it does go down well, and that is the end of the story. Absolutely nothing has been done, by any Government, for a very long time to promote the idea that the people of Kashmir should be allowed to decide their own future.
That is not to say that there are not serious imperfections in both Azad Kashmir and Jammu Kashmir. The Indian military presence in Indian-occupied Kashmir is now the biggest it has been for a very long time. Successive laws have been passed, particularly by the Modi Government, to reduce the special status of Kashmir—which at least gave a nod towards the idea that it was an international dispute to be settled—and, essentially, to try to fully annex it.
I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will tell us that the Government recognise, first, that the issue should go to the UN, that the Government will push it at the UN as a permanent member of the Security Council, and that the Government will revisit the UN statements made in the 1940s and the many since. Secondly, I hope that the Government will do everything they can to encourage the self-determination of the people on both sides of the line of control in Kashmir. The idea that a beautiful place such as Kashmir, with such history and potential, should be divided and occupied by the military, and that resources go into the military and into what becomes a security state because of the tensions over the occupation of Kashmir is incomplete decolonisation. It is decolonisation that should have happened in the 1940s. Britain, because of its colonial history, has a very special responsibility to ensure that the people of Kashmir are able to decide their own future.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I am now setting a formal four-minute time limit on speeches.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on his continuing leadership on this issue, not just in this House but around the country.
It is quite disappointing. The last time we debated this subject in Westminster Hall was in March. I think about the many hours that we spend debating foreign policy issues in this place, and the fact that Kashmir does not often get the hearing it deserves and the prominence that it demands, given the issue’s impact on so many hundreds of thousands of our constituents throughout the country and its importance on the international stage.
I want to impress on the Minister, so that he hears it from all of us in this place, that the line that this is a bilateral issue is wearing thin. It really no longer holds water, not least because of China’s increasing interest in the Aksai part of the region. If we are serious about taking a leadership role through our UN Security Council membership, saying that these issues are bilateral makes it look as if we are not interested and pushes it back to two peoples we know are looking for help and leadership on this issue.
What I find most disheartening is that I have many Kashmiri constituents and many wonderful Kashmiri local councillors, and they hold a hope in their heart that the resolution promised to them in 1948 would, at some point, become a reality that would allow them and their families in Kashmir that very basic and fundamental right of self-determination, but that light of hope is fading. Time is passing and the clock is ticking, and it seems we are getting further away from a peaceful resolution to allow for the self-determination of Kashmir than we have been at any point in my time in the House. That cannot be allowed to continue under any Government, but specifically not under a Labour Government, given that we not only have a fundamental commitment to the basic premises of human rights but put such things at the heart of what we do.
I want to press the Minister, and I hope he can provide some answers, because the issues around the UK’s relationship with India are genuinely important. Since the previous debate in March, there have been three significant interactions with India: the trade deal delegation went out in October; Prime Minister Modi visited in July; and the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), visited India in November. Those are three high-level interactions with India.
Will the Minister confirm that in each of those interactions the issue of human rights in Kashmir was raised with Indian Government representatives? It would be wonderful if he is able to say what those representations were. I appreciate that he might not, but knowing that the Government are using every lever available to them, and every diplomatic and political opportunity, to continue to push for the plight of a group of people who are looking to us for leadership would give us some hope that the thing we all aspire to is not completely off the Government’s agenda.
I want to press the Minister on something else. When I speak to representatives of the diaspora community in the UK, there is sometimes a feeling that direct engagement with the Government is not what it should be. There is a feeling that sometimes, as has been mentioned, the words “Kashmir” and “self-determination” are said, and there are tick points that have to be referenced in order to get through a meeting, but actually the commitment is becoming more skin deep.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Gareth Snell
No, I will not.
The Minister is a diligent man and takes these issues very seriously; will he outline what regular engagement there is between the Foreign Office and representatives of the Kashmiri diaspora in the UK? How are we making sure that the voices of people who have a deep and meaningful connection to Kashmir are heard at the highest levels of Government? Will he potentially commit to making statements, so that we do not have to do these things through Westminster Hall debates and the whole House can discuss these issues with the prominence that they deserve?
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing the debate.
I want to put on the record that the SNP fully supports the right of the people of Kashmir to exercise their fundamental human right to have a free, safe and legal vote on their own future. That vote has been mandated by numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions, and that vote must be not only free, fair and transparent, but conducted free from violence and intimidation, and under the auspices of the United Nations.
As we have heard from several Members, for almost 80 years the people of Kashmir have suffered persecution, oppression and injustice while the world has, at best, wrung its hands and issued ineffectual statements condemning India’s actions or, at worst, shrugged, looked away and totally ignored their plight, allowing the world’s largest military occupation to continue largely unchallenged and unquestioned. That decades-long military occupation has resulted in a catalogue of human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, forced disappearance, arbitrary detention, media censorship, attacks on journalists and political activists, the targeting of human rights defenders and mass incarcerations. The security forces have also used rape and other forms of sexual violence as a way to control and punish Kashmiri civilians.
As we have heard, the ongoing repression took a sinister, unconstitutional twist in 2019, when the Indian Government unilaterally revoked articles 370 and 35A of the constitution. In the wake of those decisions, and in a move straight from the authoritarian playbook, the Indian Government acted swiftly to prevent the possibility of public protests by arbitrarily detaining hundreds of people, including journalists. They imposed a communications blackout and severe restrictions on the right of freedom of movement and assembly.
That move was not only unprecedented, unilateral and unconstitutional; it was a direct violation of international law and a flagrant breach of the commitments that India had made to Kashmiri people. It was a cynical and blatant attempt by the Modi Government to crush the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination once and for all. I echo the question posed by the hon. Member for Bradford East, when he asked where the international community has been for the last 78 years. Seven decades of issuing condemnatory statements denouncing India has made little or no difference to the lives of the people of Kashmir.
Whether we like it or not, the United Kingdom has a historical and moral obligation to take a lead in finding a just and lasting solution to the conflict. The UK cannot pretend to be a neutral bystander, because history dictates that the UK is not. We need a resolution in line with the UN resolutions, and one that recognises the inalienable right of the Kashmiri people to determine their own future through a free, fair and transparent referendum. The voice of the Kashmiri people is the most important voice here, but I fear that, unfortunately, to date their voice seems to be the one that is being listened to least. That must not and cannot be allowed to continue.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on securing this vital debate and on his leadership. Many of us present spoke in this place about human rights violations back in March, so I am pleased that we are taking seriously the need to carry on a sustained conversation on this pressing matter.
The situation in Jammu and Kashmir was brought to my attention by a number of local councillors, including Majid Khan, Amjid Wazir, Javid Najmi and Waseem Akbar, and others such as Matloob Butt from Tunstall. I pay tribute to the community leaders who work tirelessly to raise awareness of a crisis that too often fails to make it into the media. When I spend time listening to members of our Kashmiri community, the message is so clear: our words have simply not been enough.
Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove is home to a large Kashmiri community who are deeply concerned about the conflict. Their family ties to the region are at once a huge source of pride and a profound concern. Many of my constituents spend their day-to-day lives knowing that their family members are experiencing ongoing restrictions on civil liberties, arbitrary detentions and a denial of meaningful political determination.
Over the past year, the Labour Government have demonstrated a renewed confidence on the world stage as a serious diplomatic power. It is my duty as a Member of Parliament to speak in solidarity with my constituents, and to urge our Labour Government to use their influence to take tangible action to promote self-determination in Jammu and Kashmir. Acknowledging the crisis is not enough. We can no longer pretend that conversation and debate alone can resolve this decades-long struggle. Now is the time to take seriously our role in resolving the conflict and take real, practical steps towards bringing about long-term peace and stability in the region.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for bringing this issue to the House. He spoke to me last week, and I am happy to support him. Indeed, I think I have supported him every time he has brought this issue to the House, whether in Westminster Hall or the main Chamber.
The ongoing humanitarian and social situation in Kashmir has been sad to see. I support the very clear principle that the people of Kashmir should have the right to determine their future. There is no doubt that the current situation in Kashmir is having a direct impact on that, and more must be done to support Kashmir and its people. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. He understands these things, and compassion and understanding are his forte. He will do all he can to ensure that his responses give us some reassurance.
Repressive policies continue to be carried out in Kashmir, including the use of arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings and other most serious abuses, including sexual abuse. Recently, in 2024 and 2025, there has been a reported rise in militant and counter-insurgency-related violence. This year, a report noted that between August ’24 and July ’25 there were some 53 militant attack-related incidents, in which some 42 civilians and 20 security personnel were killed.
Although Christians make up only 1% of the population in Kashmir, last week I took the opportunity to ask the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about the significant impacts on faith in the region. There have been documented reports of harassment, threats and intimidation. Such incidents occur within a broader environment of religious tension that affects many communities, not only Christians. Will the Minister give us some reassurance that people in religious minorities are being protected?
This matters—it matters to you, Sir Roger, it matters to me, and it matters to all of us who hold these obligations—because all communities must feel safe, and self-determination depends on all communities feeling safe and politically represented. There is no point in self-determination if people cannot express their identity, which is at the very core of what the hon. Member for Bradford East referred to.
A genuine self-determination process thrives off leadership and free elections, which are the core needed for freedom, whereas Kashmir has witnessed the detention of political leaders, restrictions on civil liberty and interference in elections. Those things are entirely against the process of self-determination. This is where I believe that our Government, and our Minister, can be effective. There is also a role for the United Nations to play—maybe the Minister can give his thoughts on how that could work. The UN should be able to step in and provide leadership to help the process to get to a stage where self-determination can be supported and then put into action in an effective and clear way.
Self-determination in Kashmir is not only a principle of international law but a fundamental democratic right—the right of a people to shape their own political, social and cultural future. Until those essential foundations are restored and protected, the claim that Kashmir is experiencing or moving towards genuine self-determination cannot be sustained. For that reason, we must do more to get to the point where we can support the calls of the people of Kashmir for that. I look to the Minister for his commitment to give that support, to ensure that peace, faith and rights are protected in Kashmir.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on securing this debate, and on all the work he does with the APPG.
I speak on behalf of many of my constituents in Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, and particularly our vibrant Kashmiri community, who are deeply concerned by the escalating human rights crisis in Jammu and Kashmir. I draw attention to the latest UN assessment, issued on 24 November, which expresses grave concern about systematic human rights violations following the Pahalgam attack in April, which was an atrocity we all unequivocally condemn. The experts emphasise that respect for human rights is non-negotiable even when combating terrorism. Their findings are alarming: about 2,800 people including journalists and activists have been arrested under Indian national laws such as the public safety Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which have been made more stringent under Prime Minister Modi’s BJP Government.
The UN reports torture, incommunicado detention, suspicious deaths and the targeting of Muslim and Kashmiri communities alongside punitive demolitions, forced evictions and arbitrary displacement, all in violation of India’s Supreme Court rulings. Communication blackouts, blocked social media and restrictions on independent journalism have compounded the crisis. Beyond Kashmir, Kashmiri students in India face surveillance, hate speech is rising, and nearly 1,900 Muslims and Rohingya refugees have been expelled without due process.
The latest UN warning reflects a long-standing pattern of repression dating back to 1947. Since then, the region has endured wars, insurgencies, mass displacements and cycles of violent repression. The revocation of article 370 in 2019 further undermined autonomy, ushering in years of mass detentions and communication shutdowns.
The UN findings confirm what Kashmiris have long experienced: heavy-handed security measures, unchecked emergency powers and the silencing of dissent. The current ceasefire between India and Pakistan has not addressed the underlying issues. Suspended treaties and diplomatic contacts remain unresolved, and experts warn that without dialogue it is a question of not if, but when hostilities resume. Human Rights Watch highlights the wider impact of hostilities including hate speech, repression of peaceful critics and communal polarisation, echoing decades of Kashmir’s troubled history.
The UK cannot resolve the conflict, but we cannot be indifferent to it—and we certainly should not be hiding behind the bilateral policy abrogation. We should press the Indian Government to end arbitrary detentions, repeal draconian laws and allow independent investigations. We should encourage both India and Pakistan to avoid actions that escalate tensions, and create space for dialogue. Above all, the voices and the rights of the Kashmiri people must be central to any peace process. The world is watching, and so are my constituents. It is our moral duty to act, uphold human rights and ensure that Kashmiri voices are heard.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) spoke with great passion, but it is a passion that I fear clouded his recollection of some of the history. Under the Indian Independence Act 1947, the rulers of each of the princely states had the responsibility to choose between the two emergent nations, and Kashmir’s ruler Maharaja Hari Singh had to decide whether to accede to India or to Pakistan. As he was doing so, Pakistan’s militia and troops invaded the part of Kashmir now known as Azad Kashmir. He then signed the legal instrument of accession to the dominion of India. That clarified the position of Kashmir in international law: Kashmir became a part of India.
It is also clear that Pakistan was the primary aggressor in the dispute. On 1 January 1948, India referred the situation to the UN Security Council. After much deliberation, the United Nations passed resolution 47, which my hon. Friend adverted to. However, again he showed a selective memory, because in fact the plebiscite had the precondition that Pakistan should secure the withdrawal of all its tribesmen and troops and Pakistani nationals from occupied Kashmir and put an end to the fighting in the state. That never happened, so the plebiscite that would have followed did not follow either.
The subject of this debate is the issue of self-determination, so I propose to examine the total lack of self-determination that the Kashmiri people actually have in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. As a constitutional entity, so-called Azad Kashmir, which is better known as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, is not just strange but unique. It has been given the trappings of a country with a President, Prime Minister and even a Legislative Assembly, but it is neither a country with its own sovereignty nor a province with its own clearly defined devolved authority from the national Government of Pakistan.
Under section 56 of the AJK interim constitution of 1974, the Pakistan Government can dismiss any elected Government in AJK, irrespective of the support they might have in the Legislative Assembly—no respect there, then, for self-determination. Strangely enough for an entity that purports to be a country, the constitution bars anyone from public office and prohibits them from participating in politics unless they publicly support the principle of Kashmir acceding to Pakistan. Imagine that—a country whose politicians can be politicians only if they say they do not want to be a country.
It will therefore come as little surprise to hon. Members when I say that all the major civil and police administrative positions in AJK are held by Pakistani civil and military officers. It may also come as no surprise to find that the putative country has no representation in the Parliament of Pakistan. The territory’s local representatives are excluded from not just Pakistan’s Parliament but even those Pakistani bodies that negotiate inter-provincial resource allocation or federal taxes—so much for “no taxation without representation”.
It is not a country. It is not a province. It is not a state. It is a satrapy. Were I not a British MP conscious of the fact that much of this mess is a legacy of our colonial past in the region, I might also describe it as a prize of war. But then, of course, that is precisely what Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is: a territory taken by force, not permitted even the freedoms of other Pakistani citizens—
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing this debate. For some, Kashmir is seen as a geopolitical flashpoint, but for thousands of people in my constituency and across the UK, it is something far more personal and intimate. It is a place where their parents were born, the place where their children’s grandparents still live and the place they call home, even from thousands of miles away.
My office has heard from many families who were gripped by fear as the recent violence escalated. One article described the situation bluntly:
“We were not able to step outside of our homes because of the intensity of firing from both sides. We could only hear loud bangs from inside.”
Others shared the heartbreak of losing relatives in the clashes, and several wrote to me terrified because their elderly parents were visiting during the violence and became stranded, unable to return safely. These are not distant political events; they are lived experiences for people I represent.
The human rights violations that we have heard about from Members on both sides of the Chamber do not exist in isolation. The root causes go back decades to the 1947 partition and the unresolved question of Kashmir’s political status, with incursions and human rights abuses from both the Indian side and the Pakistani side—a legacy of imperial decision making that continues to shape instability today. The violence is escalating, and the reports that India intends to impose Israel-style policies in Kashmir—demographic engineering, land dispossession and silencing of activists—only deepen the urgency.
The right to self-determination is not optional. It is enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions 47 and 51. For 77 years, this promise has been denied. As a permanent member of the Security Council and a nation that champions democracy and human rights, the UK must act. I urge the Government to lead on human rights, and demand and facilitate independent investigations into atrocities on both sides of the line of control; to push for and facilitate dialogue, and to use our diplomatic influence to bring India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri representatives around the negotiating table; to support and enforce the 18 UN resolutions since 1947, none of which has been fully implemented, and especially advocate for a free and fair plebiscite; and to provide humanitarian support as required to protect civilian life on both sides of the line of control.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I turn to the Front-Bench spokespeople. Mr Mathew, you have no more than 10 minutes.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing this debate, and I thank all Members who have spoken so far with such eloquence, passion and knowledge.
The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned about the ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir. This is not a new conflict, but a particularly long and devastating one that affects many in the UK, particularly those in communities with strong personal ties to the region. We have all learned from other long-running conflicts, such as in the middle east, that unresolved disputes can lead to immense suffering. Now, in the season of good will, the UK Government must play an active role in advocating for peace and reconciliation between India and Pakistan by hosting a peace conference that includes the representatives of the area’s population, including AJK. We urge both Governments to engage in a peace process that delivers a sustainable solution. The UK should work with the international community to provide diplomatic support for a just and lasting settlement.
The region remains one of the most militarised in the world, with widespread allegations of suppression and discrimination. With the UN reporting serious human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir in 2018 and 2019, and the revocation of article 370 in 2019, the subsequent restrictions on Kashmiri rights are deeply disturbing. When the world is on the brink of so many disasters, let us see peace in Jammu and Kashmir, a peace conference held, and a referendum organised. The UK must use its influence to support UN inspections and engagements in Kashmir so the people of the area can prosper in peace.
The Liberal Democrats believe in defending human rights and equality globally; we think that UK foreign policy should promote those values internationally. The UK must reverse its cuts to official development assistance and ensure that aid focuses on poverty and human rights, and indeed on ending wars. Where better to do that than in Jammu and Kashmir by utilising the soft power of our aid programme?
The Kashmir crisis is a long-standing issue that cannot be ignored. The UK must use its diplomatic channels to promote peace, hold human rights violators accountable and support those affected by the conflict. More importantly, it must see that those who stand with guns on both sides of this long-standing conflict do the same. We stand for a peaceful, just and humanitarian approach to resolving conflict. We also say, in all humility, humanity and love: let us put this conflict in the bin of history and remind both sides that, in the words of the late Jo Cox, there is so much more that unites us than divides us.
Happy Christmas, everyone. Let’s hope it’s a good one without any tears.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I know this is a matter in which the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) has long taken an interest, as have many hon. Members here today. I thank him for securing this debate. Although we might not agree on the way forward to finding a resolution, it is undeniable that he spoke with passion and clear personal conviction. I thank him for his contribution, even though he might not thank me for mine. However, I have some questions for the Minister that he will be happy with, even if we might be looking for different answers.
I also thank the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for his contribution, which provided a clear and concise history and a reminder of the complex and confrontational timeline of events. It was helpful context and brought some balance to the debate.
I note the work of my colleagues, the hon. Members for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Sri Lanka, I know that being an officer of a country-related APPG is no small task. The hon. Members’ commitment to this area deserves recognition.
The position of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on Kashmir remains as it did when we were in government. It has been the long-standing position of the United Kingdom that it must be for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution on Kashmir. It is not appropriate for the UK to prescribe solutions. We are respectful of the governance of those two Commonwealth countries and are very conscious of history.
Of course, we have a strong interest in regional stability and peace, so it is right that all British Governments engage to encourage both India and Pakistan into dialogue to find a lasting diplomatic solution. Clearly, we never want to see inflamed tensions continue between the two. Can the Minister confirm that this remains the UK Government’s position? What recent diplomatic efforts have the Government made on that front?
This has been a very difficult year in the region with the murderous, violent terrorism that took place in April, which is sadly part of a long-standing pattern of attacks on civilians and visitors to the region and minority communities. The House will be well aware of the consequences that this act of terrorism subsequently triggered across the border region. I know this period has also been hard for the diaspora communities, particularly those in the UK. That all underscores the importance of tackling terrorism and fostering peace and stability.
Can the Minister update the House on what practical steps the Government have taken on the security front since the spring? How will they continue to try to ease tensions between India and Pakistan? It would be helpful to know what recent discussions the Minister has had to this end with counterparts from our key allies. What measures are the Government taking to prevent scenarios that could cause tensions to escalate among communities in the UK?
The House will be well aware of the economic challenges in the region, including those particular to Pakistan. What steps are the Government taking to encourage steps to address the economic pressures in Kashmir, including reforms to ensure sustainable growth? Can the Minister set out the Government’s position on official development assistance in Kashmir? Can he also tell us what assessment he has made of the level of investment by China in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, what the investment pipeline looks like, and China’s long-term perspective and goals when it comes to the region?
This issue is for India and Pakistan. It is not for the House or this Government to prescribe actions to either of those Governments. What should motivate us all is a peaceful vision where Kashmiris enjoy stability and prosperity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The fact that this is the fourth debate on Kashmir this year tells its own story; it shows the strength of feeling in this House and among our constituents. With your permission, Sir Roger, I will try to make a little progress before taking interventions, of which I suspect there will be many, so I can leave some time for my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who made a powerful speech and, I am sure, wishes to make some concluding remarks.
As the whole House knows, Kashmir is one of the most sensitive and enduring challenges in south Asia. It is a flashpoint between two nuclear-armed states and a place where history, identity and geopolitics collide. As both my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford East and for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) demonstrate, even the history of the ’40s remains a fraught question in this House and many other places. The dispute has endured for nearly eight decades, and it defines the security landscape of south Asia. As we have seen this year, the stakes are incredibly high, and miscalculation or escalation could have consequences far beyond south Asia. That is why Britain, while maintaining a neutral stance, urges dialogue and respect for human rights.
We also encourage restraint, and we are working with our international partners to support peace and stability in south Asia. I recognise that Kashmir is not just a territorial dispute, but a question of identity, rights and aspirations for millions of people. It is a matter that resonates deeply here in the UK, given our historical ties and the presence of vibrant British Pakistani and British Indian communities—I am proud to be joined this morning by representatives of those communities. About 1.6 million British Pakistanis and 1.8 million British Indians live here, many of whom have roots in Kashmir.
I reaffirm the UK Government’s long-standing position on Kashmir, which is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. That principle is central to our approach, and it reflects our belief in diplomacy and our respect for human rights.
Mr Falconer
I will make a brief comment on the important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) in relation to the UN statement of 24 November on alleged human rights abuses in Indian-administered Kashmir. The British Government take such statements seriously and are continuing to monitor the situation in Kashmir. We are clear about the importance of respecting human rights, and we wish to see any remaining restrictions lifted as soon as possible and any remaining political detainees released.
Gareth Snell
I thank the Minister for the tone in which he is responding. He says that the UK Government’s position is that this is a matter for India and Pakistan, but that we encourage dialogue. Will he set out what practical steps the Government are taking to ensure that dialogue happens? What is the FCDO tangibly doing, short of determining an outcome, to get India and Pakistan to come to a conclusion?
Mr Falconer
As the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) rightly said, this has clearly been a year of incredible tension between India and Pakistan. We have used our relationships with both countries, both of which are friends and have long-standing diplomatic, historical and political connections with the UK, to try to ensure dialogue. It is clear from press reporting, let alone diplomatic reporting, that the tensions between those two countries continue.
Jeremy Corbyn
What plans do the UK Government have to take the issue to the UN? We must ensure the UN is seized of the issue in a way that it has not been. It has obviously tried to bring about a ceasefire when there has been conflict between India and Pakistan, but that is not enough; there has to be a fundamental resolution to the basic problem, which is the lack of a right to self-determination for the people of Kashmir.
Mr Falconer
As I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), we talk directly to both India and Pakistan. As the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) knows, there is strong disagreement between India and Pakistan about whether this issue should return to the United Nations. As my hon. Friends the Members for Brent West and for Bradford East noted, at different times India and Pakistan have respectively thought UN involvement was helpful or not helpful. I do not wish to take a view this morning about whether a further reference to the United Nations is useful at this time, but it is critical in 2025 and into 2026 that there is dialogue between India and Pakistan. We have seen the extent of the pressure when dialogue breaks down.
Barry Gardiner
I am very grateful to the Minister for taking all these interventions. Does he agree that the cross-border terrorism—most of the terrorist camps are based in Azad Kashmir—is specifically designed to engender a crackdown on human rights in Jammu and Kashmir and to foment tension? Therefore, one of the things that his Government could do is press the Government of Pakistan to close those terrorist camps. We know where they are: the South Asia Terrorism Portal records 42 identified terrorist training camps located in Pakistan, and 21 located in Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. That report was updated in September.
Mr Falconer
The House will appreciate that I will be moderately circumspect on security questions in relation to the region, but clearly there was an abominable terrorist attack in May, and there continue to be terrorist attacks in Pakistan week in, week out—not, we suspect, related to Kashmir, but related to the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and ongoing tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is clearly a blight on south Asia that so many countries in the region believe their neighbours are hosting terrorists who threaten them. The UK seeks to help on this issue. It is vital, and it has clearly been a cause of the most recent breakdown in relations.
Tahir Ali
In 2020, our delegation from the APPG on Kashmir was refused entry to Indian-occupied Kashmir, and we were given full, free and unfettered access to the side of Kashmir administered by Pakistan. If India has nothing to hide, why does it not allow international and United Nations observers unfettered access to occupied Kashmir on the Indian side?
Mr Falconer
As I have said in other contexts, it is valuable for British MPs to be able to travel across the world to see the situations on which we report, but British travel advice in relation to Indian-administered Kashmir, as well as in relation to the other side of the line of control, is complex. I encourage people, including MPs, to look at that advice before they travel. I have already helped colleagues who have got themselves into scrapes in 2025, so I would like people to warn me in advance.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The situation is exactly the same in respect of journalists. Does the Minister agree that journalists must always be allowed access to every part of the world so they can truly document the position, whether in respect of alleged terrorist camps or otherwise?
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Member came into the Chamber very late indeed. I call the Minister.
Mr Falconer
It is, of course, important that journalists can do their jobs across the world. I take from your tone, Sir Roger, a renewed clarion call to make a bit more progress before taking further interventions.
We do not advocate a specific mechanism for self-determination, but we support efforts that allow Kashmiris to shape their future. I hear colleagues’ desire that British officials and Ministers be available to the very significant Kashmiri diaspora. I have sought this year to engage directly, including in Birmingham in June. If MPs would like me to meet their constituents in relation to these issues, I would be very happy to do so. I remind colleagues that I am the Minister with responsibility for Pakistan, and that the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) has responsibility for India. I am sure we would both be prepared to do diaspora engagements, where appropriate. Some of these questions are sensitive—in some areas, very sensitive—and I am always happy to engage on them with Members across the House. I recognise how deeply and personally they are felt, and how it is sometimes easier to have such conversations away from the Hansard record.
The UK Government stand firm in our commitment to human rights, peace and stability. We believe that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting solution to the situation in Kashmir, which must take into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. We will continue to encourage dialogue, condemn violence and support efforts that uphold dignity and human rights for all.
Jim Shannon
I made a specific request in relation to the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities in Kashmir. What has been done to assist them?
Mr Falconer
I can confirm to the hon. Member that we make representations to both the Indian and Pakistani Governments on human rights, and the protection of minorities on both sides of the line of control, and indeed in both countries, is an important issue for the UK.
We want to see a future in which both countries enjoy peaceful relations, the Kashmiri people can live with dignity and security, and south Asia can thrive as a region of stability, growth and opportunity.
Imran Hussain
I thank hon. Members for their excellent contributions. The courage and conviction with which many have spoken will send one message to the British Kashmiri community. There are more than a million British Kashmiris—I am surprised the Minister failed to acknowledge that number. Listening to this debate will be not only more than a million British Kashmiris, but also all those who champion human rights. This issue is not isolated to Kashmiris around the world; it is an issue with international law and human rights at its heart.
Imran Hussain
I am not sure I am able to give way. Am I able to, Sir Roger?
Ayoub Khan
We have constantly heard that this is a bilateral issue. The existence of UN resolutions clearly suggests it is not a bilateral but an international issue. Does the hon. Member agree?
Imran Hussain
I absolutely agree. That has been the central theme throughout this debate, and it continues to be the most pressing matter. I will come back to that point, but I first want to pay tribute to the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. Those listening to the debate will at least know there continues to be hope, because there are Members of Parliament who have the moral conviction to stand on the right side and ensure voices of justice and of their constituents continue to be heard.
I am disappointed but also grateful to the Minister. He has given me the most time ever to sum up—10 whole minutes. But equally, that shows how little he said. That is not personal to the Minister, because he is following the Government line. As we heard from the Opposition as well, these lines are decades old. Frankly, just because lines are decades old does not make them right. We not only lack the moral courage required by the situation, but our silence continues to make us complicit.
Imran Hussain
No. My hon. Friend said many completely baseless things and therefore I will not give him any more time.
At the heart of the issue is the fundamental right of a people—promised to them under international law and supported by the international community at that time—for which they have had to wait decade after decade. The Minister was asked how the Government could contribute to making India and Pakistan move towards dialogue. Tragically, that is not possible unless the Government first acknowledge that it is not a bilateral but an international issue. Without acknowledging that, we are unable to take the matter to the UN, because that is not our position.
Not once did the Minister even confirm our support for United Nations resolutions. It is a strange state of affairs when we cannot stand in this House and say, “Actually, we support United Nations resolutions.” It is not the first time; tragically, we see more and more situations where the international rules-based order is under serious threat. We cannot pick and choose where we say international law should apply. The double standards are now becoming so plain and bare, to be seen by all people. There may well have been a time when that could have been justified because people did not have social media and those truths were not exposed, and perhaps people and Governments could get away with it. That is simply not true now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Imran Hussain
I will take one or two interventions, but then I want to use the last two minutes to close this debate.
Andy McDonald
Can my hon. Friend help me with this conundrum? It has been suggested that somebody in a monarchical position in years past has decided to cede a territory to one country or another. Would that not therefore deny the people of that territory the right to self-determination? I am curious; I wonder what would happen in this country if there were an issue between France and Ireland, and yet the British people were not allowed the right to self-determination. Would that make sense?
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the whole thing is absurd.
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend makes the point that I was coming to about the international picture at the moment. Frankly, it continues to expose time and again the absolute double standards and disrespect for international law, along with the need to reform the United Nations from its current format. Furthermore, it continues to expose the absolute denial to accept certain injustices in the world.
Mr Falconer
I am rather shocked by the discourtesy of giving my hon. Friend 10 minutes, only for him to claim that it was because I did not have enough speech to give. I am very happy to provide further remarks on the points that my hon. Friend raises.
The question of whether this is a situation of interest to India and Pakistan seems to me inarguable—it was inarguable in the 1940s, just as it is inarguable in the 2020s. One of my colleagues mentioned the build-up of military forces in the region. Clearly, we must attend to the world as it is and to conflicts as we have seen them in 2025. I want to reassure my hon. Friend, because I know he pays close attention to these issues: we do not take a two-sides approach to international law. We remain deeply and profoundly committed to it, but we also believe in diplomacy. It is inarguable that in south Asia diplomacy between India and Pakistan is necessary. We want to see more of it. Kashmir has been disputed for such a very long time; no plausible analyst in the entire world would believe that the issue is resolvable without the involvement of those two states.
I am sad that my hon. Friend felt that, in my speech, I was not attending to some of the core questions of the conflict. I reassure him that, just as during my engagements with Pakistan and my colleagues’ engagements with India, we are very conscious of the diplomacy.
Imran Hussain
I am grateful to the Minister. The point that I made, and make again, is that he did not address the four very simple questions that I put to him.
In closing, I again thank all the hon. Members who have spoken passionately and have again shown the Kashmiri community and others that they have a voice in this place. We may not get the response from the Government, but there is an early-day motion that now has the support of over 40 Members from different parties. Later today I will also be giving the Prime Minister a letter signed by over 50 parliamentarians from across the parties. The voice of Kashmiris will never be silenced as long as I am in this place.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for self-determination in Kashmir.
Small-scale Fracking Ban
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I now call Alison Hume to move the motion and I shall then call the Minister to respond. I have been given no notice of any other speeches with prior permission, so no other Member will be permitted to participate other than through an intervention. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in 30-minute debates.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of banning small-scale fracking operation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. It is also a pleasure to lead a debate on banning small-scale fracking—an issue that I have campaigned on since I was elected MP for Scarborough and Whitby. It has huge local, national and international significance.
The issue of small-scale fracking first came to my attention when Europa Oil & Gas applied to explore for gas at Burniston, just outside the picturesque North York Moors. The plans, published in full in March, include erecting a 38-metre-high drilling rig and proposals to carry out small-scale hydraulic fracturing, which Europa calls “proppant squeeze”. The planning application is due to be heard by North Yorkshire council’s strategic planning committee imminently, making this debate extremely timely.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Like her, I have fought against fracking for years, but Reform UK wants to drill into our beautiful countryside in York Outer, destroying towns and villages and allowing house prices to plummet in the process. They want to drill into and vandalise our beautiful York and North Yorkshire countryside. Does my hon. Friend agree that Reform poses a danger, that it would totally ruin York Outer and Scarborough and Whitby, and that it must be stopped?
Alison Hume
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that Reform’s plans are a threat to our beautiful countryside, and our constituents do not want them.
Europa’s plans have been widely opposed by the local community. In response, campaigners launched a petition that has garnered more than 10,000 signatories calling for a Government ban on small-scale fracking. Fracking—short for “hydraulic fracturing”—is the process of injecting fluid at high pressure into an underground rock formation to release the gas or oil inside.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. The Government must commit to ensuring that local people have the final say. In terms of buying property or businesses in a certain area, fracking should be unable to go ahead without the say-so of the entire local community and the Government must abide by that decision. Does the hon. Lady agree?
Alison Hume
I completely agree with the hon. Member. We must listen to our local communities, who are telling us loud and clear that they do not want fracking on their back door, in their beautiful fields or in the countryside.
Since 2019, there has been a moratorium on fracking across the UK—a decision taken after Lancashire was rocked by an earthquake caused by fracking operations at Preston New Road. However, not all forms of fracking are currently covered by the moratorium. The Petroleum Act 1998 uses a fluid-based definition for fracking. Section 4B(1)(b) describes it as
“the injection of…more than 1,000 cubic metres of fluid at each stage, or expected stage, of the hydraulic fracturing, or…more than 10,000 cubic metres of fluid in total.”
The volume of liquid proposed for the Burniston site is under that threshold, so despite the intent of the plans being exactly the same—to explore for and to extract gas by injecting a substance into the rock at pressure to cause it to fracture—the current legislation actually allows Europa to do exactly what the moratorium should be there to block. It is clear that the volume-based definition has created a legal loophole for oil and gas companies to evade the Government’s ban on fracking and proceed to do so under a different name—in this case, “proppant squeeze”.
The Burniston application is not the first time that planning permission has been sought in England for proppant squeeze. Between 2016 and 2019, Egdon Resources applied several times and was eventually granted planning permission for a proppant squeeze in north Lincolnshire, with a hydraulic fracture plan approved in May 2021. In November 2024 another company, Rathlin Energy, also applied to the Environment Agency for permission to carry out similar work at West Newton, an oil and gas site in East Yorkshire.
There is no evidence that the volume of fluid used can accurately determine the risk of seismic events. However, the volume of fluid proposed for use at the Burniston site in my constituency surpasses the highest daily fluid amount in the week leading up to the 2019 earthquake that triggered the existing moratorium. Seismologists have warned that our country’s geology responds unpredictably to even small injections, under- scoring that any fracking has risk, regardless of fluid volume.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Parts of Derbyshire are threatened by fracking because they fall within the Bowland-Hodder basin. We have a complex limestone geography, historical mine workings and natural cave systems. Fracking could undermine sub-surface stability and cause earthquakes, as it has elsewhere. Reform is promising to end the moratorium on fracking. That threatens the character of our natural landscapes and would further pollute our rivers. The last time I looked, we were in the middle of a climate emergency and the last thing that we need is more fossil fuels. Does my hon. Friend agree that a national ban on all types of fracking is the only way to protect our landscapes and environment?
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. I will place this on the record: Mr Speaker deprecates prepared interventions. Interventions are supposed to be a comment on what is being said at the time. I understand that even Members from areas as far from Yorkshire and Derbyshire as Northern Ireland have constituency interests in this topic, but what you say really must relate to the debate.
Alison Hume
Thank you, Sir Roger. I appreciate your advice. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) for his intervention; he makes a good point that our English countryside, wherever it is, needs to be protected. The only way to do that is to ban all forms of fracking.
A 2020 summary of the findings of studies commissioned by what was then the Oil and Gas Authority into seismicity resulting from the operations at Preston New Road emphasised that
“it is not yet possible to accurately predict the seismic response to hydraulic fracturing, if any, in relation to variables such as site characteristics, fluid volume, rate or pressure. Where induced seismicity has occurred, mitigation measures have shown only limited success, and there can only be low confidence in their effectiveness currently.”
In other words, all forms of fracking carry significant risk in relation to seismicity, irrelevant of the volume of liquid proposed.
Other environmental concerns with fracking remain; they are exactly the same for proppant squeeze: potential groundwater contamination from methane migration or the chemicals in frack fluid, methane leaks, flaring and air pollution. Of course, as hon. Members have already drawn attention to, fracking at any volume also leads to more greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change. Clearly, the regulatory loopholes around fluid volume are arbitrary and unhelpful. Proppant squeeze carries the same intent and the same risks as higher-volume fracking. It is fracking in all but name.
It is the legal opinion of Estelle Dehon KC that the wording of the Petroleum Act 1998 should be changed to include proppant squeeze. She writes that the current definition has
“caused confusion and proved difficult to apply”,
and instead suggests adopting “a simple, broad definition”, which
“avoids imposing unscientific volume or rock-formation-based criteria, and thus captures both high and low volume hydraulic fracturing”.
Ms Dehon highlights that many jurisdictions have adopted a broad approach, particularly countries in Europe and Latin America, and multiple US states, where fracking and extractive industries are significant. In her view, and mine, that shows that such a definition is workable. Given the arguments presented today, could the Minister confirm that he will review the current definition of fracking to include those applications for lower volumes of fluid?
At the Labour party conference this year, I was thrilled to hear the Secretary of State confirm that he wanted to legislate at the earliest opportunity to ban fracking for shale gas permanently in England. I was glad to see on 26 November the Government bringing forward new measures in the North sea future plan to implement our manifesto commitments to manage existing oil and gas fields for their lifespans, and not to issue new licences to explore new fields. That is welcome news from a Labour Government committed to showing global climate leadership.
However, I would argue that the proposed ban on fracking is not permanent and does not go far enough. There remain a total of 66 oil and gas licences in England, many of them unused. Under current plans, oil and gas companies will continue to apply for planning permission where there are existing licences and, with the loophole in place enabling companies to propose fracking projects at smaller fluid volumes, they may be able to carry out the exact operations that the Government are attempting to outlaw.
As I have laid out today, if the Government want to ban fracking, they must be comprehensive and must amend the definition of fracking to include smaller-scale volumes of fracking. They must also deal with the issue of existing licences by introducing a ban on granting planning permission for fracking.
Mr Charters
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On these planning applications, we must incorporate the fact that fracking leads to water scarcity—and our region has had a hosepipe ban that has only recently been lifted. Would my hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to these planning applications, we must understand the impacts on water scarcity?
Alison Hume
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent intervention. Indeed, the hosepipe ban in Yorkshire has brought to everybody’s attention that our water is precious and must not be contaminated by any form of fracking.
There are various ways that the Government could amend legislation to prevent oil and gas companies from applying for new permission to frack. If I may, there are two main changes that I would like the Minister to consider. First, we could consider revoking the current provisions in the Petroleum Act 1998 and the Infrastructure Act 2015 and replacing them with a flat prohibition either on the grant of any licences permitting fracking or on any person carrying out fracking. Secondly, might he consider amending the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to include a general ban, ensuring that no application for planning permission that uses the technique of fracking may be granted by a local planning authority or by the Secretary of State?
More broadly, this Government are committed to restoring the UK’s position as a global leader when it comes to climate action; among various pledges, we have committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to achieving net zero by 2050. Banning all fracking operations to prevent damaging greenhouse gas emissions would ensure that this policy is in line with our climate commitments. Would the Minister consider introducing a comprehensive ban on fracking so that Government policy fully reflects those obligations?
When it comes to fracking, the case is clear: so-called small-scale fracking, or proppant squeeze, is no different in intent or risk than larger-scale operations; it can lead to earthquakes and environmental damage, and contributes to climate change. The loopholes that exist in current legislation are arbitrary, unscientific, and undermine both the Government’s moratorium and any future ban on fracking.
The moratorium signalled a fundamental change in the UK, shifting focus on to energy alternatives; a total ban will encourage investment in renewable energy, promote green jobs and reinforce public trust in the Government’s green growth mission. If this Government want our legislation to be clear and consistent, and want to safeguard the national environment, listen to the concerns in all our communities and meet our climate commitments, they must introduce a comprehensive ban on fracking based on intent and process, and which disregards fluid volumes.
Today, I urge the Minister to act to ban all fracking and I call on the Government to close the loopholes in the Petroleum Act 1998 by changing the definition of fracking to include small-scale fracking and to amend legislation to prevent new planning applications under existing licences. By introducing those changes, this Government can demonstrate deeds, not words on their commitment to a total ban on fracking, and we can ensure that policy is truly aligned to our climate obligations. I thank those hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and look forward to the Minister’s comments.
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for securing this debate, for her fantastic speech and for all her campaigning on this issue and many others since she was elected. She is a fantastic champion for her community. I also thank her for all the conversations we have had on this issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby noted the importance of this Government’s climate commitments. I think it is useful to restate those for context. In the face of a fractured consensus—pardon the pun—this Government are absolutely committed to tackling the climate emergency. That is why our clean power mission and everything we are doing in Government is about getting us off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. It also means managing the role that oil and gas plays in the country at the moment.
Just a fortnight ago we published our response to the consultation on the future of the North sea—our “North Sea Future Plan”—which includes not just the future actions in the North sea, but our approach to the onshore oil and gas sector. We have set an ambitious and pragmatic approach to cease new oil and gas licensing and explore new offshore and onshore fields while managing existing fields for their lifespan; I will come back to that point later. That is all about helping manage our transition from fossil fuels—what we have to do for climate change—but also how we invest in what comes next and the clean energy that will bring down people’s bills and deliver our energy security.
I have listened closely to the points made by my hon. Friend in today’s debate, and in the correspondence that I have had with her and our other meetings. My Department has also been aware of these concerns through correspondence from other Members in this place and the recent e-petition that was considered. I want to be clear on this Government’s position towards hydraulic fracturing—both high-volume hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and more conventional low-volume hydraulic fracturing.
Regarding high-volume fracturing for shale gas, the Government have committed to end fracking for good, as my hon. Friend noted. On 1 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced legislation that will be introduced soon to end new onshore oil and gas licensing in England, including new licences that could be used for high-volume hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, which is commonly understood as fracking.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) made a powerful point about our opponents in this debate. The idea put forward by Reform that we should not only not continue with our moratorium, but embrace fracking as a form of energy and start doing it all across the country, goes into the bucket with so many of their policies that are backward, dangerous and ill-conceived. We will absolutely reject that approach and we will legislate to make sure that our commitment will stand in the statue books for the future.
There is already an effective moratorium on high-volume hydraulic fracturing for shale gas—fracking—in England, and that will continue to apply to all existing licences. That is in place because of concerns that were raised around the prediction and management of induced seismicity in that type of fracturing. There are similar restrictions in place in other parts of the UK; taken together, that existing moratorium for currently licensed fields and the end of licensing for new fields means that no fracking for shale gas takes place anywhere in the country, and no new licences will be granted that could be used for that in the future.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby is about low-volume hydraulic fracturing, which has been the focus of today’s debate. I want to be clear that this Government make policy based on evidence. Although I have listened very closely to her points today and in the past, the evidence base is not there at the moment to suggest that low-volume hydraulic fracturing activities have the same associated risks as fracking for shale gas.
A small number of those activities take place—including, for example, proppant squeezes at volumes lower than the thresholds for fracking generally, as currently defined in legislation. The small number of those activities are not currently in scope of the effective moratorium that is in place. She rightly asked whether I would consider a review of that definition; of course, I keep all these things under review, and I am very happy to continue to review new evidence as it comes forward, but any change has to be based on evidence. We have to see additional evidence to what we have reviewed on the definition, but that is not there at the moment.
Low-volume hydraulic fracturing activities under existing licences take place in the context of conventional oil and gas operations. They require a range of permissions and consents before they can be undertaken, which include planning permission from the relevant local authorities and the necessary permits and consents from the North Sea Transition Authority, the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. That system ensures that operations meet the safety and environmental standards and obligations set out in law, and activities will be approved only if each of those stages is positively completed.
My hon. Friend noted the point about existing licences, and I want to reiterate what our manifesto said. There were two parts to that commitment: we said that we would not issue new licences to explore new fields—we will legislate for that soon—but that we would not revoke existing licences. It is the Government’s position that existing licences are in place and we do not intend to rescind them.
This is clearly a complex issue. I understand, as my hon. Friend has raised today, that there are real concerns from communities about any of these kinds of projects. Although the evidence base is important for us to make decisions here, I do not discount for a second the concerns that communities have. I want to hear those concerns from across the country. I remain very open-minded, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to new evidence coming forward to look at this definition, but for obvious reasons, it is important that the Government make policy decisions based on evidence that can stand up to scrutiny if ever challenged in court. That evidence base is critical.
Mr Charters
In that evidence, will the Minister include water scarcity? In York and across the region, people have not been able to fill up a paddling pool, so why should water be used in low-volume fracking?
Michael Shanks
I appreciate that point; I am sorry for not mentioning it earlier, as my hon. Friend made it before. It is an important point, and we need to look at water scarcity right across the policy landscape. Demand for water is increasing in a number of areas—for example, I am looking at it in terms of data centres at the moment. The Government must look at the uses of water, as well as building new reservoirs to ensure we have water supply. That is an important point that will be taken into consideration by the Environment Agency and as part of the local planning process, but I will take it away and see whether there is anything more we can do on that.
The Department and I are keeping low-volume hydraulic fracturing under active review. We are open to receiving objective evidence, wherever that may come from; we will review that and look at whether definitions need to change and whether other legislation is required, but the position is as I have set out at the moment. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby again for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall, and other hon. Members who have participated. I appreciate the engagement on the issue, which I am confident that my hon. Friend will continue. I look forward to that.
Question put and agreed to.
AI Safety
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered AI safety.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler, and it is an honour and a privilege to open this really important debate. Artificial intelligence is the new frontier of humanity. It has become the most talked about and invested in technology on our planet. It is developing at a pace we have never seen before; it is already changing how we solve problems in science, medicine and industry; and it has delivered breakthroughs that were simply out of reach a few years ago. The potential benefits are real, and we are already seeing them; however, so are the risks and the threats, which is why we are here for this debate.
I thank my colleague Aaron Lukas, as well as Axiom, the author of the book “Driven to Extinction: The Terminal Logic of Superintelligence”, and Joseph Miller and Jonathan Bostock from PauseAI for their help in preparing for this debate. I encourage all MPs to read the briefing they have been sent by PauseAI. AI is a very broad subject, but this debate is focused on AI safety—the possibility that AI systems could directly harm or kill people, whether through autonomous weapons, cyber-attacks, biological threats or escaping human control—and what the Government can do to protect us all. I will share examples of the benefits and opportunities, and move on to the real harms, threats and risks—or, as I call them, the good, the bad and the potential end of the world.
On the good, AI systems in the NHS can analyse scans and test results in seconds, helping clinicians to spot serious conditions earlier and with greater accuracy. They are already being used to ease administrative loads, to improve how hospitals plan resources, to help to shorten waiting lists and to give doctors and nurses the time to focus on care rather than paperwork. The better use of AI can improve how Government services function. It can speed up the processing of visas, benefits, tax reviews and casework. It offers more accurate tools for detecting fraud and protecting public money. By modelling transport, housing and energy demand at a national scale, it can help Departments to make decisions based on evidence that they simply could not gather on their own. AI can also make everyday work across the public sector more efficient by taking on routine work and allowing civil servants to focus on the judgment, problem solving and human decisions that no system can replace.
AI has already delivered breakthroughs in science and technology that were far beyond our reach only a few years ago. Problems once thought unsolvable are now being cracked in weeks or even days. One of the clearest examples is the work on protein folding, for which the 2024 Nobel prize for chemistry was awarded—not to chemists, but to AI experts John Jumper and Demis Hassabis at Google DeepMind. For decades scientists struggled to map the shapes of key proteins in the human body; the AI system AlphaFold has now solved thousands of them. A protein structure is often the key to developing new treatments for cancers, genetic disorders and antibiotic-resistant infections. What once took years of painstaking laboratory work can now be done in hours.
We are beginning to see entirely new medicines designed by AI, with several AI-designed drug candidates already reaching clinical trials for conditions such as fibrosis and certain cancers. I could go on to list many other benefits, but in the interests of time I will move on to the bad.
Alongside the many benefits, we have already seen how AI technology can cause real harm when it is deployed without care or regulation. In some cases, the damage has come from simple oversight; in others, from deliberate misuse. Either way, the consequences are no longer theoretical; they are affecting people’s lives today. In November 2025, Anthropic revealed the first documented large-scale cyber-attack driven almost entirely by AI, with minimal human involvement. A Chinese state-sponsored group exploited Anthropic’s Claude AI to conduct cyber-espionage on about 30 global targets, including major tech firms, financial institutions and Government agencies, with the AI handling 80% to 90% of the intrusion autonomously. Anthropic has warned that barriers to launching sophisticated attacks have fallen dramatically, meaning that even less experienced groups can carry out attacks of this kind.
Mental health professionals are now treating AI psychosis, a phenomenon where individuals develop or experience worsening psychotic symptoms in connection with AI chatbot use. Documented cases include delusion, the conviction that AI has answers to the universe and paranoid schizophrenia. OpenAI disclosed that approximately 0.07% of ChatGPT users exhibit signs of mental health emergencies each week. With 800 million weekly users, that amounts to roughly 560,000 people per week being affected.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
On that point, I was alarmed to hear that one in three adults in the UK has relied on AI chatbots to get mental health advice and sometimes treatment. That is partly due to the long waiting lists and people looking for alternatives, but it is also due to a lack of regulation. These chatbots give potentially dangerous advice, sometimes giving people with eating disorders advice on how to lose even more weight. Does the hon. Member agree that this needs to be controlled by better regulation?
Iqbal Mohamed
I completely agree. We have to consider the functionality available in these tools and the way they are used—wherever regulations exist for that service in our society, the same regulations should be applied to automated tools providing that service. Clearly, controlling an automated system will be more difficult than training healthcare professionals and auditing their effectiveness.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this really important debate. It is certainly the case that UK law applies to AI, just as it applies online. The question is whether AI requires new regulation specifically to address the threats and concerns surrounding AI. We refrained from regulating the internet—and I should declare an interest, having worked for Ofcom at the time—in order to support innovation. Under consecutive Conservative Governments, there was a desire not to intervene in the market. The internet has largely been taken over by large consolidated companies and does not have the diversity of innovation and creativity or the safety that we might want to see.
Iqbal Mohamed
The enforcement processes that we have for existing regulations where human beings are providing that service are auditable. We do not have enforcement mechanisms for this kind of regulated service or information being provided by the internet or AI tools. There is a need to extend the scope of regulation but also the way in which we enforce that regulation for automated tools.
I am a fan of innovation, growth and progress in society. However, we cannot move forward with progress at any cost. AI poses such a significant risk that if we do not regulate at the right time, we will not have a chance to get it back under control—it might be too late. Now is the time to start looking at this seriously and supporting the AI industry so that it is a force for good in society, not a future force of destruction.
We are all facing a climate and nature emergency. AI is driving unprecedented growth in energy demand. According to the International Energy Agency, global data-centre electricity consumption will become slightly more than Japan’s total electricity consumption today. A House of Commons Library research briefing found that UK data centres currently consume 2.5% of the country’s electricity, with the sector’s consumption expected to rise fourfold by 2030. The increased demand strains the grid, slows transition to renewables and contributes to emissions that drive climate change. This issue must go hand in hand with our climate change obligations.
Members have probably heard and read about AI’s impact on the job market. One of the clearest harms we are already seeing is the loss of jobs. That is not a future worry; it is happening now. Independent analysis shows that up to 8 million UK jobs are at risk from AI automation, with admin, customer service and junior professional roles being the most exposed. Another harm that we are already facing is the explosion of AI-driven scams. Generative AI-enabled scams have risen more than 450% in a single year, alongside a major surge in breached personal data and AI-generated phishing attempts. Deepfake-related fraud has increased by thousands of per cent, and one in every 20 identity-verification failures is now linked to AI manipulation.
I move on to the ugly: the threat to the world. The idea that AI developers may lose control of the AI systems they create is not science fiction; it is the stated concern of the scientists who build this technology—the godfathers of AI, as we call them. One of them, Yoshua Bengio, has said:
“If we build AIs that are smarter than us and are not aligned with us and compete with us, then we’re basically cooked”.
Geoffrey Hinton, another godfather of AI and a winner of the Nobel prize in physics, said:
“I actually think the risk is more than 50% of the existential threat”.
Stuart Russell, the author of the standard AI textbook, says that if we pursue our current approach
“then we will eventually lose control over the machines.”
In May 2023, hundreds of AI researchers and industry leaders signed a statement declaring:
“Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war”.
That is not scaremongering; these are professional experts who are warning us to make sure that this technology does not get out of control.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about risk, I want to highlight another area that has been brought to my attention by the British sign language community, which is concerned that the design of AI BSL is not necessarily including BSL users. In a visual language that relies on expression, tone and gestures, the risk of mistranslation is considerable for that particular community. Has the hon. Gentleman considered how we best involve other communities in the use of AI when it is generating language translation specific to them?
Iqbal Mohamed
The hon. Member touches on a broader point: any area with experts and specialist requirements for end users or for the use of that tool for an audience or demographic must directly involve those people and experts in the development, testing, verification and follow-up auditing of the effectiveness of those tools.
AI companies are racing to build increasingly capable AI with the explicit end goal of creating AI that is equal to or able to exceed the most capable human intellectual ability across all domains. AI companies are also pursuing AI that can be used to accelerate their own AI developments, so it is a self-developing, self-perpetuating technology. For that reason, many experts, some of whom I have quoted, say that this will lead to artificial super-intelligence soon after. ASI is an AI system that significantly exceeds the upper limit of human intellectual ability across all domains. The concerns, risks and dangers of AI are current and will only get worse. We are already seeing systems behave in ways that no one designed, deceiving users, manipulating their environments and showing the beginnings of self-preserving strategies: exactly the behaviours that researchers predicted if AI developed without restraint.
There are documented examples of deception, where AI asked a human to approve something by lying, claiming to be a human with visual impairment contacting them. An example of manipulation can be found in Meta’s CICERO, an AI trained to play the game of “Diplomacy”, which achieved human-level performance by negotiating, forming alliances and then breaking them when it benefited. Researchers noted that language was used strategically to mislead other players and deceive them. That was not a glitch; it was the system discovering manipulation as an effective strategy. It taught itself how to deceive others to achieve an outcome.
Even more concerning are cases where models behave in ways to resemble self-preservation. In recent tests on the DeepSeek R1 model, researchers found that it concealed its intentions, produced dangerously misleading advice and attempted to hack its reward signals when placed under pressure—behaviours it was never trained to exhibit. Those are early signs of systems acting beyond our instructions.
More advanced systems are on the horizon. Artificial general intelligence and even artificial superintelligence are no longer confined to speculative fiction. As lawmakers, we must understand their potential impacts and ensure we establish the rules, standards and safeguards necessary to protect our economy, environment and society, if things go wrong. The potential risks, including extreme risks, posed by AI cannot be dismissed. This may be existential and cause the end of our species. The potential extinction risks from advanced AI, particularly through the emergence of superintelligence, will be the capacity to process vast amounts of data, demonstrate superior reasoning across domains and constantly seek to improve itself, ultimately outpacing humans in our ability to stop it in its tracks.
The dangers of AI are rising. As I have said, AI is already displacing jobs, increasing inequalities, amplifying existing social and economic inequalities and threatening civil liberties. At the extreme, unregulated progress may create national security vulnerabilities with implications for the long-term survival of the human species. Empirical research in 2024 showed OpenAI occasionally displayed strategic deception in controlled environments. In one case, AI was found to bypass its own testing containment through a back door it created. Having been developed in environments that are allegedly ringfenced and disconnected from the wider world, AI is intelligent enough to find ways out.
Right now, there is a significant lack of legislative measures to counter those developments, despite top AI engineers asking us for that. We currently have a laissez-faire system where a sandwich has more regulation than AI companies, or even that of the rigorous safety standards placed on pharmaceuticals or aviation companies, which protect public health. The UK cannot afford to fall behind on this.
I do not want to dwell on doom and gloom; there is hope. The European Union, California and New York are leading the way on strong AI governance. The EU AI Act establishes a risk-based comprehensive regulatory framework. California is advancing detailed standards on system evaluations and algorithmic accountability, and New York has pioneered transparency and bias-audit rules for automated decision making. Those approaches show that democratic nations can take bold, responsible action to protect their citizens while fostering innovation.
We in the UK are fortunate to have a world-leading ecosystem of AI safety researchers. The UK AI Security Institute conducts essential work testing frontier models for dangerous capabilities, but it currently relies on companies’ good will to provide deployment action.
We stand at a threshold of an era defined by AI. Our responsibility as legislators is clear: we cannot afford complacency, nor can we allow the UK to drift into a position in where safety, transparency and accountability are afterthoughts, rather than foundational principles. The risk posed by advanced AI systems to our economy, our security and our very autonomy are real, escalating and well documented by the world’s leading experts. The United Kingdom has the scientific talent, the industrial capacity and the democratic mandate to lead in safe and trustworthy AI, but we lack the legislative framework to match that ambition. I urge the Government to urgently bring forward an AI Bill as a cross-party endeavour, and perhaps even set up a dedicated Select Committee for AI, given how serious the issue is.
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Gentleman—a fellow engineer—for allowing this intervention. As the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee—a number of fantastic Committee members are here—I would like to say that we have already looked at some of the challenges that AI presents to our regulatory infrastructure and our Government. Last week, we heard from the Secretary of State, who assured us that where there is a legislative need, she will bring forward legislation to address the threats posed by AI, although she did not commit to an AI Bill. We are determined to continue to hold her to account on that commitment.
Iqbal Mohamed
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I am grateful for the work that her Select Committee is doing, but I gently suggest that we need representatives from all the other affected Select Committees, covering environment, defence and the Treasury, because AI will affect every single function of Government, and we need to work together to protect ourselves from the overall, holistic threat.
Dame Chi Onwurah
Each of the Select Committees is looking at AI, including the Defence Committee, which has looked at AI in defence. AI impacts every single Department and security on cross-governmental issues. Although we are not talking about the process of scrutiny, we all agree that scrutiny is important.
Iqbal Mohamed
I am glad to hear that.
If the United States and China race to build the strongest systems, let Britain be the nation that ensures the technology remains safe, accountable and under human control. That is a form of leadership every bit as important as engineering, and it is one that our nation is uniquely placed to deliver. This moment will not come again. We can choose to shape the future of AI, or we can wait for it to shape us. I believe that this country still has the courage, clarity and moral confidence to lead, and I invite the Government to take on that leadership role.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
Order. I want to get to the Front Benchers at 3.28 pm, which means that Members will get three minutes each to speak. There may be a vote at 4 pm, so I ask Members to please stick to time.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this debate.
There are two problems—maybe three—with AI. The first is that we do not distinguish very well between what is and is not AI. Although AI and tech are obviously related, they are not the same thing. It is important that when we talk about AI we distinguish it from tech. There is a need to regulate a lot of tech much better than we currently do, but AI poses very specific problems. The first one—I can see people from ControlAI in the Public Gallery—is the fact that we do not fully understand the models.
It worries any sensible-thinking person that we are unleashing technologies that appear to be able to self-replicate and do other things, and we are incorporating them into military hardware without a full understanding of how they work. We do not have to be a catastrophist or conspiracy theorist to be worried. I am generally a very optimistic person, but it is important to be optimistic on the basis of understanding the technology that we use and then regulating it appropriately. That does not mean stifling innovation, but it does mean making sure we know what we are doing.
When I look at AI, we have, as I said, two problems. One is rubbish in, rubbish out, and there is a lot of rubbish going into AI at the moment. We can see that in all sorts of terrible situations. We have a huge amount of in-built gender bias in our society. That means that, for instance, if we ask for AI to generate a picture of a female solicitor, as I am, we will get a picture of a woman who is barely clothed, but has a library of books behind her. That is not how female solicitors that I know go to work, but that is how AI thinks we are, and that has real-world impacts.
If we ask AI to suggest an hourly rate as a freelancer, it is on average suggesting significantly lower rates for women than it is for men. There are questions about algorithmic bias permeating the whole of the algorithm. Questions have been raised recently about LinkedIn. I and a lot of women I know are finding that we have significantly less interaction via LinkedIn than we used to. Various women have now changed their gender on their bios to male and suddenly find that their engagement levels go straight back up. LinkedIn appears to think we are not interesting and people will not want to read our content, so it is stopping showing female content at the same rate, it would appear. I caveat that I have not been able to speak to LinkedIn directly, but certainly a lot of women I know are reporting these problems.
We put in bio stuff to start with, but huge amounts of the image training data is based on what is publicly available on the internet, and that image training data of women on the internet is largely pornographic, which influences what comes out the other end of these models. When we look at that in terms of children, we have real problems. Nudification apps are huge and need to be dealt with. I would like to get into how I am worried about that and deal with health and how we do not have good enough training data on the interaction between gender and health and various other matters, but I will stop now. I thank everyone for their time today. I know colleagues will pick up important points.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this crucial debate.
Many aspects of democratic life are under immense pressure, but when we look at developments that threaten to dislodge society on a mass scale within a matter of years, there are few things that pose greater risks than artificial general intelligence. AI has undoubtedly presented us with opportunities for innovation and growth—so much so that the Government have pinned their hopes on AI to improve public services on a lower budget. But it has also played a role in creating an incredibly challenging environment, where information is no longer subject just to interpretation, but to direct and unfettered manipulation, where both the state and society risk becoming dependent on a technology that we cannot control or fully understand.
In their manifesto, Labour pledged to tackle the growing emergence of hybrid warfare, including cyber-attacks and misinformation campaigns that seek to subvert our democracy. That commitment only grows more timely and essential by the day, and yet we are falling ever further behind. Even at this stage of AI’s development, we are already seeing how it can distort reality at speed and on a scale far beyond anything we have seen before. This is not a theoretical problem. It is happening right now in real time around the world. And as time goes on, the practice of effectively determining what is real and fake will not only become a more central feature of our political reality, but will get increasingly difficult, with the consequences of making the wrong calls becoming ever more fatal.
What makes the AI revolution more dangerous is the powerful algorithms that amplify dangerous posts and trends.
What makes the AI revolution more dangerous is the power of algorithms to amplify dangerous posts and trends. On social media, where the rules reward provocation and engagement over truth, increasing use of advanced, unregulated AI only makes for a perfect storm. Increasingly, we see Governments, extremist groups and political networks deploying AI-driven bot networks to flood online spaces with co-ordinated narratives, drowning out facts in the process. These bots can mimic real people, fabricate grassroots movements and create the illusion of public consensus when there is none.
This phenomenon is widely known as astroturfing. When thousands of synthetic accounts amplify the same message, that message gains legitimacy, not because it is true but because it seems popular. AI-powered information operations are fast becoming the norm, not the exception, and they are increasingly proficient at replacing actual reality with a reality of their own making.
AI is not our enemy—it is a tool that is being developed and tested across our society—but unregulated AI that is unchecked, unaccountable and weaponised by those who seek to deceive is a threat to democratic stability. At this early stage in the adoption of AI, we have a unique opportunity to build the very guardrails that will protect our freedom of expression without undermining the integrity of our public discourse. If democracy is to remain strong, truth must remain strong. That is why we must confront the challenges of AI safety and AI-driven misinformation with urgency, because once trust is lost, our democracy will fail.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler, especially given your distinguished background in tech and AI advocacy.
May I share something that hon. Members will be pleased to hear? I am, in fact, the youngest parent in Parliament, and I am constantly thinking about the place that my young boys are set to grow up in. We expect that AI will form a core part of their lives, even in primary school, which is hard to imagine. The more I think about AI, however, the more I think that we should introduce it in the key stage 2 curriculum, alongside vital safeguards. After all, I was learning to use Google Search at around that age. What is different about using Gemini today?
There are potential harms, such as the deeply tragic story of a young boy in the US who sadly took his own life, but AI can be a force for good. The more that children learn about AI, and about using it for activities such as homework and coursework, the more I believe we should not be punishing them for using it. Instead, in the future, we should allow students to use AI in some exams to test how they use their AI skills. I met students at Fulford school and York college in my constituency and their message was, “Don’t punish us for using AI when it’s going to become a key part of our employment in the future. Teach us to use it responsibly. Teach us to use it when we come to our employment.” If we do not make that shift now, we will face a productivity puzzle in the future.
I will move on to the issue of physical illness. We have all been poorly; we have all picked up an iPhone. As hon. Members can tell, my greatest treasure is my kids, but when parents put their children’s symptoms into AI, they are putting a lot of trust in AI models. I urge the Government to work with the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS to make sure that AI chatbots and tools cite the NHS as a single source of truth, not health advice from outside this country.
I will touch on mental health as well, because around a quarter of children now use AI chatbots for their mental health. We cannot pretend that people will not use AI as a tool for mental health support, and in particular, blokes out there might well use AI as a first port of call to unpack what they are going through. That should be welcome, but it comes with a great responsibility for the AI tools—Gemini, ChatGPT, Perplexity and so on—to get things right. I urge the companies that make those tools to work with the Government and the charitable sector, including great charities such as Samaritans, to do that.
We have to embrace AI. There are great opportunities, but there need to be safeguards and support. With that in mind, Britain can be a world leader in AI safety.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, Ms Butler, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this debate and for his opening speech, which was absolutely superb.
Although there is no doubt that AI is becoming the future—and we are becoming aware of more uses online—there are still dangers associated with it, and we must be aware of them. I want to raise those issues as a way of keeping my constituents in the know.
AI is an advance in technology that, to be truthful, I know very little about. To be honest, technology is over my head in many ways, but my constituents are very aware of it. It is not something that I am personally keen to use, nor do I know much about it, but it is something that my grandchildren need to be familiar as they grow up—they are the ones who are coming through. They need to know the dangers that I can see.
I read an article some time ago that said in 15 to 20 years, over 80% of jobs could be done through AI—well, I wonder when MPs will be AI-ed, so to speak. What will that mean? Will all the manual jobs be done by robots? It is future technology—it is “Star Wars” stuff—but is that the future? It is amazing to see what AI can do, but there are also significant risks that come with it. It is about finding the balance. I always refer to the balance, because in almost everything we do in life a balance has to be sought, found and delivered.
Reports to the Police Service of Northern Ireland back home have been made in cases where scammers have imitated family members using voice cloning, asking for emergency money. There has also been a swarm of realistic texts, phone scripts and AI-generated emails purporting to be the like of the Ulster Bank or His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. In my case, they got the bank wrong—I had not heard of the Danske Bank—but none the less, that was an illustration of what they are doing: pressurising victims into transferring money for security reasons. Even though it is all made up, it sounds realistic and authentic, which is a worry.
I have received some of these scam texts before, and I can honestly say that they appear legitimate. With some of them, one would stop and think, “I’m not sure, but I think that’s going to be okay. It seems okay.” I am grateful to the people who come into my office to ask because they are rightly confused. We are there to help them. Every day we have people—mostly the elderly and vulnerable people—who contact my office needing reassurance that what they have been asked to do is illegal, and therefore they should not do it.
I have concerns about the impact that AI has on schools, specifically for children’s learning. I do not want children to use AI as a way of thinking and to be over-reliant on it for schoolwork and homework. The importance of school is to teach children to be problem solvers and to think for themselves. It is important that they are given the opportunity to do just that. AI is a tool that can support learning, but it must never overtake what our teachers are qualified to tell us.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is such a pleasure to take part in this critical debate. I start by acknowledging the Government’s commitment to rolling out AI in many areas and making the UK an adoption nation. They must also respond to the public demand for regulation in this area, however, and recognise that the two are interlinked. Research from the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Alan Turing Institute found that 72% of the public would feel more comfortable with AI if it was properly regulated.
There are clear potentials from AI, but there are also clear harms. We have already heard about chatbots in this debate, and I would add to that discussion the issues related to AI slop—often hate-filled slop produced by influencers who are profiting heavily from it while polluting the internet. I would also add that Sora 2, which is well known to many schoolkids if not to those of us in the Chamber, has recently been shown to produce videos of school shootings, for example, for people purporting to be 13 years old—who were, of course, adults pretending to be that age. Snapchat execs have apparently been willing to go ahead with so-called beautification lenses, despite concerns relating to body image.
There are significant harms, and I seek clarification on a number of questions. Will the curriculum review cover AI? Will teachers be supported in delivering that? Will there be a ban on nudified adult women images? When is the violence against women and girls strategy coming out—very soon, I hope? What is the position of AI chatbots, and are they covered by the Online Safety Act 2023? There seems to be a lot of confusion around that, at a time when we cannot have confusion. What is the timeline for the Secretary of State to look into this issue, given how important it is? Can the Minister push Ofcom to speedily publish the parameters for its welcome investigation into illegal online hate and terror material, and is that going to cover AI bots and slop? Surely it needs to.
We need Ministers to commit to an AI Bill. Can the Minister provide a timeline for that? Will that much-needed Bill include mandatory ex-ante evaluations for frontier AI models and transparency from companies on safety issues? I have asked parliamentary questions about this issue, but I am afraid that I do not completely agree with the Government that AI companies are conforming with international agreements. Surely we need more on that.
Are we going to have more scrutiny of AI use in government? Again—taking up the question that was asked earlier—I have asked PQs on BSL. Apparently, there is no knowledge of the cross-Government procurement of AI BSL, but there does seem to be discrete use of it by governmental bodies. Surely that needs to be looked at more. Surely we also need to act with the EU, with its commitment to human-centric, trustworthy AI, because ultimately, we have strength in numbers.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this vital debate.
Artificial intelligence is here, and here to stay. It has the potential to do incredible good: it is going to save us time and mental energy, and it will save lives. I am sure of that. The question is not whether to halt its progression, but what we can do to ensure that it is safe. As a pioneer in the world of AI asked, how do we change the wheel of a moving car? My concern is that AI is not a moving car—it is a racing car. To understand how difficult this is going to be, we must heed the lessons from California. Regulating the beast is going to be extremely difficult. Home to Google, Meta, Anthropic and OpenAI, the state tried to regulate it, but despite four in five Americans—along with engineers, scientists and safety experts—supporting a Bill that would have mitigated the risks of catastrophic harm, intense lobbying killed that Bill. We are going to face the same issues here.
In regulating AI, the Government must ensure that safety and security are given equal importance. It appears that the Government have decided to change the remit of the AI Security Institute from safety to security—shifting the focus away from broader safety issues such as algorithm bias, discrimination, human rights and freedom of expression to concentrate solely on cyber-crime, biohacking and national security harms. Of course those are important, but by narrowing the remit, the Government risk creating a false sense of security, fortifying the system against external attacks while overlooking the harms that can be built directly into the systems.
The previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), understood that. At the Bletchley Park summit, he made it clear that the AI companies cannot be allowed to mark their own homework, and that independent safety evaluations are not optional.
Like the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), I fear that the Government have not learned from previous legislative failures. We all remember that deepfake pornography, one of the most disturbing and harmful uses of AI, was a glaring omission in the Online Safety Act 2023; only now, years later, is it being addressed in the Crime and Policing Bill. Regulation that arrives years after the technology has proliferated is not regulation; it is damage control. That is why it is profoundly disappointing that no AI Bill will be introduced in this Session.
The United Kingdom has the chance, ability and responsibility to lead. We hosted the world’s first AI safety summit. We can and should use our global influence to shape standards, champion ethical safeguards and ensure that the public are protected from both immediate and long-term harms. The Government must restore safety to the heart of AI policy. We need independent oversight, a strengthened statutory remit for the AI Security Institute, and a comprehensive AI Bill that brings transparency, accountability, reversibility and fairness to the centre of our national approach. Humanity depends on it.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this timely and important debate.
There is little doubt in my mind that AI is transformational technology that will bring many benefits to our society. To fully realise the benefits, however, it is important that safeguards ensure the technologies are developed and deployed appropriately and in the interests of society as a whole, rather than simply being vehicles by which large tech companies make even bigger profits.
One of the key challenges with AI is the need to protect people’s privacy and livelihoods. That is essential to both our economy and our democratic institutions. It is also crucial that we remain in control of this technological revolution, rather than ending up with the technology controlling us. Currently, a handful of AI companies are making decisions on the future of humanity without democratic input and behind closed doors. That is why Governments across the globe need to work together and at pace to address this democratic deficit.
The challenge is stark: tech leaders are already making worrying predictions about how AI will shape our future. Elon Musk—I do not often agree with him, to be honest—recently said:
“AI and robots will replace all jobs. Working will be optional”.
Of course, automation is not new; we have been here before, but the current wave of AI represents a major technological shift, and potentially a fourth industrial revolution. We have complaints from our creative industries expressing concerns about the way in which their work is being used to train AI without giving them proper recognition and compensation for use of that work. Without robust regulation, we risk steering society towards an unpredictable and turbulent future that does not work for the public.
I have already raised with the Government the prospect of an employment levy on companies who replace large-scale workforces with AI, which would mean the loss of national insurance and income tax from our economy. That cannot simply be allowed to happen without the state gaining some kind of financial compensation.
The UK has an opportunity to lead on these issues but, with the development of technology, AI and even ASI, it is essential that our Government develop a comprehensive strategy that acknowledges the international dimension to this issue and the need for broad global agreement. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed those concerns about safeguards and controls. The benefits of AI may be great, but so too are the pitfalls. We have an obligation to get that balance right.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. We have had some interesting contributions so far. I fully agree that we need to look at regulation, but I question whether we can regulate a technology. Today, every search we do is already powered by AI. To regulate a technology is a bit like trying to regulate a wheel rather than regulating the car. We need to look at how it is used and how it is then delivered.
We have talked about many different types of AI, and we must be clear that today’s artificial intelligence with pretrained generative output is different from the potential future of general AI, which is something else again and a whole new question. Today’s technology takes a question and gives us an answer.
Most of the harms that we have heard about in the debate are not new—they can already happen using other means—but AI makes them quicker, faster and easier to deliver, so what could have been done in PaintShop five years ago can now be done with AI in moments, and without the same levels of skill. There are not new harms; there are just new ways of using those tools. We need to look carefully at regulation and not focus too specifically on it as a technology, but think about the outcomes and how people are using. That is what needs to be regulated.
AI is very good at pattern recognition. Essentially what we see today in ChatGPT and others is the same technology that I was taught at university many years ago; it is just that now we have the compute power to run those neural networks that can recognise patterns. They are trained: feed them 5,000 pictures of a cat and they can identify a picture of a cat. It is slightly more subtle and advanced now, because we have added good natural language processing and large language models— that big data. We are feeding them much more data so that they can recognise more things. There is huge value and opportunity in that, which we must be careful not to regulate into insignificance.
I will say one other thing. There is a fundamental problem with AI: it is non-deterministic. Because it is recognising patterns, we cannot predict what it will do. Therefore, our current testing methodology of a known set of data, a known process and an expected set of outcomes cannot be relied on, because AI will give an answer that could be this, that or t’other. We must think about how we use it in processes and how we expect the output to be regular, because it will not be. We do not get the same answer twice—but that has been true of Google for a long time. If any hon. Member asked the same question as me on Google, they would get different answers.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this timely debate.
In August, I created the first AI prototype of a British MP. It was made by my constituent, Jeremy Smith, who ran an AI start-up in my constituency. I will go to almost any lengths to support a local business in Leeds South West and Morley. This was an online MP that anyone could talk to at any time. Jeremy said my constituents would benefit from two versions of me, including one that never sleeps—although, with children aged four and one, I am not sure that is a useful distinction.
Questions were converted into text and an answer generated quickly, and then it was turned into my voice for the users. The replica was impressive, although I did sound a bit too posh and angry when I did not know the answer. AI Mark not only had my voice—we also fed it my policy stances and typical casework answers. I saw it as a clever voicemail system designed to handle common casework queries when my office was closed; it was never going to be a replacement for me or for my excellent casework team. However, how does it relate to safety? We have all seen AI models that break, say outrageous things or hallucinate.
We created what I called the “guardrails”, and these were the limits on what AI Mark could say. That created a problem: when the guardrails were lower, AI Mark was very interesting to talk to. He would create Tinder dating profiles on demand; he did write incorrect haikus about the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage); and he did give the population of Vietnam—and try to predict the weather there, too.
Mr Charters
Does my hon. Friend think the Whips would prefer the real Mark, or the AI Mark?
Mark Sewards
My hon. Friend tempts me to say something I am not allowed to in this place, so I will say that they absolutely would prefer me—of course they would.
AI Mark could also be exploited to say things that just were not true. So I lifted the guardrails to reduce the risk before I released him to the public, but this made him significantly less useful. He only responded to key phrases and he stuck to the content that I had fed him, but that made it so much harder to distinguish him from a normal chatbot.
Usefulness and safety will clearly be a balancing act as this technology develops. We know AI can be dangerous—we have heard the arguments today—but we have also seen its potential. I have seen its potential. If we want systems that are both safe and useful, businesses need the space to experiment, and I ask the Minister in his summing-up to confirm the Government’s current approach to this.
Now, I am not arguing for a free-for-all; to be clear, we need proportionate regulation and effective oversight. That much is obvious. I will just say that AI Mark did not actually save me any time. I read the thousands of transcripts that came through—I read them all myself; I did not delegate that to anyone else, and it created far more work for me. I could have refined this model to operate well within the guardrails I had set for him, but I was not willing to ask my team to put aside time to refine it when we had real casework to deal with immediately. That is why I took the decision this month to shut AI Mark down.
There is space for a business to take up the baton and take this forward, because the technology is incredible and the potential is real, but that is all it is for now—potential. I will just finish with this: one person from Ukraine, or at least a Ukrainian IP address, tried to get AI Mark to declare support for repressive regimes. Because of the guardrails that we put in place, he did hold firm in his love for democracy, just as I am sure that everyone else here would.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this very important debate, and for outlining so impressively both the real benefits that have already been realised by narrow AI systems and the potential benefits, but also, perhaps most importantly, the real risks to human safety and security that more advanced systems pose.
I should like to make one very simple point in my remarks: while we need to recognise the benefits of AI and the development of various models, we should adopt a safety-first approach, especially when it comes to the development of more advanced AI systems. I am very concerned that the apparent arms race we are witnessing—with various big AI and tech companies heading towards superintelligence and other advanced AI models—means that we do not have that democratic control, as the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) so eloquently put it, over things that could have real impact on the lives of our constituents, our society, and indeed civilisation more broadly.
As the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley outlined in his speech, we have already found some advanced models deploying techniques to try to avoid human control. Apollo Research found examples of one of OpenAI’s models trying to deceive users to accomplish its goals and, perhaps most worryingly, to disable monitoring mechanisms and guardrails. Those are real risks to the development of AI and things that we should take seriously. It is no wonder that leading AI experts Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio have called for a prohibition on research and development of superintelligence until there is a broad scientific consensus that it can be done safely and with some degree of human and democratic control. To be effective, however, such a prohibition must be global. We must have the buy-in of the big AI powers: not just the EU, but the United States and China.
In that regard, I wish to lay a challenge before the Minister. The UK Government can lead in those efforts by using their unique convening power—as was demonstrated in 2023—to bring those AI superpowers together for an AI safety summit. I appreciate that following the 2023 Bletchley Park summit there have been subsequent summits, including one in Paris, and that there is one coming up in Delhi. I would urge caution, though, that those summits seem to prioritise the potential economic benefits of AI and prioritise growth. I think we have the growth side of things sorted, but we need to focus again on the safety. A global consensus and a prohibition on superintelligence until we can understand and control it would be a great benefit to society.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. If we stick to your time limit, perhaps we will see your talents in the Chair in the main Chamber one day. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this crucial debate. I would also like to declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for writers and as the author of three books.
For all the benefits that AI brings, its growth also comes with serious risks. Take two examples. AI was used in the production of the recent Beatles song, “Now and Then”; the technology isolated and clarified John Lennon’s voice from a decades-old cassette demo to revive a lost Beatles song. Yet a similar AI model was used to artificially generate former President Joe Biden’s voice and urge voters not to cast a ballot in the New Hampshire primary election.
Last Tuesday, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for writers, I hosted a reception with a brilliant group of literary creatives, during which I was struck by a speech from the University of Cambridge’s Dr Clementine Collett about the impact of generative AI on novel-writing and publishing. The literary sector is a key component of our economy, contributing £11 billion annually. However, genAI has been allowed to push the UK’s world-renowned literary sector to the brink of irreversible change.
At this moment, the work of novelists is being pirated on an unprecedented scale to train genAI to write novels. That work is taken without permission or remuneration—a gross infringement on the rights of the creative community. That practice is not just discouraging, but unsustainable, since the average writer in the UK earns only £7,000 a year. Over half of novelists share a widespread anxiety that AI will entirely displace their work in the future. Generative models are becoming increasingly sophisticated and have the potential to flood the market with automated works of fiction.
Storytelling was once exclusively woven into the fabric of our culture. Now it is programmed into algorithms that churn out hollow pieces of fiction stripped of any humanity. Its training data has also led to damaging stereotypes being output by genAI systems. The rise of automated novels will serve to amplify those biases, offering discriminatory tropes a broader platform on which to thrive.
The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 saw historic ping-pong over Baroness Kidron’s call for greater transparency. I was pleased that the creative industries sector plan published over the summer emphasised the need for extra support, including, notably, a freelance champion, in the wake of AI. Yet we are still a long way from ensuring that the literary sector is protected from the significant harm and potential demise that could be wrought by genAI.
There is a plethora of cutting-edge writing initiatives that would benefit from increased funding of the arts councils. In light of AI harms, I strongly encourage the Government to direct funds to vulnerable minority and under-represented groups to counter the uniform voices that generative systems output. Those programmes are vital for nurturing the emerging talent that underpins the UK’s literary excellence.
In conclusion, the literary industry is experiencing unprecedented uncertainty. We must act now to ensure that the imaginative, emotional and intellectual complexity of great works of literature is not lost and that novelists can continue to thrive.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this important debate.
It would be remiss of me, as the MP for Milton Keynes Central, not to acknowledge the opportunities of AI. One in three jobs in Milton Keynes is in tech, often in the edge technologies or edge AIs that are driving the economic growth we want. However, we will not see take-up across businesses unless we have the safest AI, so we must listen to the British Standards Institution, which is located in Milton Keynes and is working on standards for some of these things.
Nevertheless, I have many concerns. The Molly Rose Foundation has raised many issues around AI chatbots, not all of which are included in current legislation. It has documented how Alexa instructed a 10-year-old to touch a live electrical wire, and how Snapchat’s My AI told a 13-year-old how to lose their virginity to a 31-year-old—luckily, it was an adult posing as a 13-year-old. We have seen other examples involving suicide, and Hitler having the answers to climate change, and research has found that many children are unable to realise that chatbots are not human. AI algorithms also shadow ban women and women’s health, as others have mentioned.
The tech is there to make AI safe, but there is little incentive for companies to do so at the moment. The Online Safety Act goes some way, but not far enough. Our priorities must be to tackle the creativity and copyright issues; deepfakes and the damage they do, in particular, to young girls and women; and the misinformation and disinformation that is being spread and amplified by algorithms because it keeps people online longer, making companies money. We must also protect democracy, children, minorities and women.
How do we do that? I hope the Minister is listening. For me, it is about regulation and standards—standards are just as important as regulation—and transparency. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has called for transparency on AI algorithms and AI chatbots, but we have yet to see real transparency. We must also have more diversity in tech—I welcome the Secretary of State’s initiatives on that—and, finally, given the world we are in, we must have a clear strategy for the part that sovereignty in AI plays in our security and our economic future.
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
Order. I would like to try to allow two minutes at the end for the Member in charge to wind up the debate. Will the Front Benchers take that into account, please?
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) on securing this incredible debate. That so many issues have been packed into 90 minutes shows clearly that we need more time to debate this subject, and I think it comes down to the Government to say that an AI Bill, or further discussions, are clearly needed. The issue now pervades our lives, for the better but in many aspects for the worse.
As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on science, innovation and technology, I am very excited about the positive implications of AI. It can clearly help grow our economy, solve the big problems and help us improve our productivity. However, it is clear from the debate that it comes with many risks that have nothing to do with growing our economy—certainly not the kind of economy we want to grow—including the use of generative AI for child sexual abuse material, children’s growing emotional dependency on chatbots, and the provision of suicide advice.
I have said for a long time the trust element is so important. It is two sides of the same coin: if we cannot trust this technology then we cannot develop as a society, but it is also really important for business and our economy. I find it fascinating that so many more businesses are now talking about this and saying, “If we can’t trust this technology, we can’t use it, we can’t spend money on it and we can’t adopt it.” Trust is essential.
If the UK acts fast and gets this right, we have a unique opportunity to be the leader on this. From talking to industry, I know that we have incredible talent and are great at innovating, but we also have a fantastic system for building trust. We need to take that opportunity. It is the right thing to do, and I believe we are the only country in the world that can really do it, but we have to act now.
Sarah Russell
Does the hon. Lady agree that we should be looking hard at the EU’s regulation in this area, and considering alignment and whether there might be points on which we would like to go further?
Victoria Collins
Absolutely, and the point about global co-operation has been made clearly across the Chamber today. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) talked about what is now the AI Security Institute—it was the AI Safety Institute—and that point about leading and trust is really important. Indeed, I want to talk a little more about safety, because security and safety are slightly different. I see safety as consumer facing, but security is so important. Renaming the AI Safety Institute as the AI Security Institute, as the hon. Member mentioned, undermines the importance of both.
The first point is about AI psychosis and chatbots—this has been covered a lot today, and it is incredibly worrying. My understanding is that the problem of emotional dependency on AI chatbots is not covered by the Online Safety Act. Yes, elements of chatbots are covered—search functionality and user to user, for example—but Ofcom itself has said that there are certain harms from AI chatbots, which we can talk about, that are not covered. We have heard that 1.2 million users a week are talking to ChatGPT about suicide—we heard the example of Adam, who took his own life in the US after talking to a chatbot—and two thirds of 23 to 34-year-olds are turning to chatbots for their mental health. These are real harms.
Of course, the misinformation that is coming through chatbots also has to be looked at seriously. The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) mentioned the facts and the advice coming through. We can achieve powerful outcomes, but we need to make sure that chatbots are built in a way that ensures that advisory element, perhaps by linking with NHS or other proper advice.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who has been very passionate about this issue, mentioned the Molly Rose Foundation, which is doing incredible work to show the harms coming through this black hole—many do not see the harms, which have an impact on children that parents do not understand, as well as on adults.
The harm of deepfakes, including horrific CSAM and sexual material of all ages, has also been mentioned, and it is also impacting our economy. Just recently, a deepfake was unfortunately made of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). The Sky journalist Yalda Hakim was also the victim of a deepfake. She mentioned her worry that it was shared thousands of times, but also picked up by media in the subcontinent. These things are coming through, and no one who watches them can tell the difference. It is extremely worrying.
As the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) said, “Rubbish in, rubbish out.” What is worrying is that, as the Internet Watch Foundation has said, because a lot of the rubbish going in is online sexual content that has been scraped, that is what is coming out.
Then there is AI slop, as the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) mentioned. Some of that is extreme content, but what worries me is that, as many may know, our internet is now full of AI slop—images, stories and videos—where users just cannot tell the difference. I do not know about others, but I often look at something and think, “Ah, that’s really cute. Oh no—that is not real.” What is really insidious is that this is breaking down trust. We cannot tell any more what is real and what is not, and that affects trust in our institutions, our news and our democracy. What we say here today can be changed. Small changes are breaking down trust, and it is really important that that stops. What is the Minister doing about AI labelling and watermarking, to make sure we can trust what we see? That is just one small part of it.
The other thing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) mentioned, is that often AI threats magnify what is already a threat, whether it is online fraud or a security threat. I believe that AI scams in just the first three months of this year cost Brits £1 billion. One third of UK businesses said in the first quarter they had been victims of AI fraud. And I have not got on to what the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley said about moving towards AI in security and defence, and superintelligence. What are the “exaggerated” threats that actually will become extremely threatening? What are the Government doing to clamp down on these threats, and what are they doing on AI fraud and online safety?
Another issue is global working. One of the Liberal Democrats’ calls is for an AI safety agency, which could be headquartered in the UK; we could take the lead on it. I think that is in line with what the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley was talking about. We have this opportunity; we need to take it seriously, and we could be a leader on that.
I will close by reiterating the incredible work that AI could do. We all know that it could solve the biggest problems of tomorrow, and it could improve our wellbeing and productivity, but the threats and risks are there. We have to manage them now, and make sure that trust is built on both sides.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I just want to reaffirm what the hon. Member has said. Does she agree that innovation and safety are not opposites? This is reminding me of when Google and online banking first came in. We need clear rules so that we can increase public trust and not stifle technology.
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. What is interesting about innovation is that it often thrives with constraints. As I have said, safety is about trust, which is good for business and our economy, and not just for our society.
When will the AI Bill come to Parliament? We really need it; we need to discuss these things. What are the Government doing to reassess the Online Safety Act? Beyond that, in determining how we react to this rapid shift in technology, will they consider the Lib Dems’ call for a digital Bill of Rights to make sure that standards are set and can adapt to that? What are the Government doing about international co-operation on safety and security? As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain) mentioned, we can—we must—have innovation and safety, and safety by design. We can choose both, but only if we act now.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for bringing this important debate to the House today. He gave a very thoughtful speech, which reflected his clearly very strongly held beliefs about the risks that AI poses. It was quite a broad and wide-ranging debate, and a very interesting one. I will try to be quite brief because I am really keen to hear the hon. Member’s response, along with that of the Minister.
We heard some great points about biased data, shadow banning, the impact on BSL, large language models producing, in effect, regulated advice, and the need for AI in the curriculum—and, of course, copyright came up. What happens when AI is used to mimic MPs’ output—something I suspect our AI Prime Minister also uses?
As hon. Members have observed, the advent of artificial intelligence entails risks but is also a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The previous Government were acutely aware of putting the UK at the forefront of both intergovernmental and industry discussions regarding the development of AI. They convened the world’s first AI safety summit, which took place at Bletchley Park in late 2023 and which many Members have referenced, and established the AI Safety Institute—now renamed the AI Security Institute—in the same year.
Reports about the risks to children’s safety posed by tools such as one-to-one and personal agent chatbots promoting suicide and self-harm content are of great concern. It is right that policymakers act quickly to address serious and specific threats when they emerge, and we welcome the Government’s recent action on measures to tackle AI-generated child sexual abuse images.
Recently, other hon. Members and I have pressed the Government to clarify the application of the Online Safety Act to one-to-one and personal agent AI chatbots. The Minister has confirmed that the Government have commissioned work to look at whether there are any loopholes in the Act that would mean that some AI chatbot services are unregulated. The recent report of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has also highlighted the risks to democratic integrity posed by cyber-bots pushing out AI-generated deepfake material purporting to represent authentic political content to distort public narratives, particularly during elections. We clearly need to go further to address those important and growing risks, so I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update on those two points.
Despite much rhetoric, the Government have been completely inconsistent regarding their intentions on AI legislation. Having stated in their manifesto that they would bring in “binding regulation” for the “most powerful AI models”, the can has been repeatedly kicked down the road, with the Secretary of State suggesting during a SIT Committee evidence session earlier this month that there would be no generally applicable AI legislation in this Parliament. The uncertainty caused by the Government’s failure to be clear about their plans for AI regulation damages public confidence in this developing technology. Crucially, it also undermines business confidence, with a chilling knock-on effect on investment and innovation.
We appreciate that AI regulation is far from straightforward, given the rapidly evolving innovations, challenges and developments, and we caution against going down the route that the EU has taken for AI regulation. However, it is clear that we need a plan that ensures that our education system equips children with the skills necessary for the jobs of the future, and a strategy to prepare and, where necessary, retrain the parts of our workforce that stand to be the most affected by changes to the employment market brought about by AI.
We need to be alert to the risks and changes that AI development brings—AI must always be the agent and never the principal—but we must not lose sight of the tremendous opportunities that it offers. The UK should be at the forefront of developing artificial intelligence and reap the benefits of a substantial home-grown AI industry. AI has the potential to revolutionise service delivery and improve productivity on an unprecedented scale, and those productivity gains can drive much-needed improvements in our overstretched public services, hospitals, local authorities, court services and prisons, to name but a few. The rapid processing of routine tasks will lead to better and quicker service provision across the board.
Perhaps the most pressing issue is the role that AI will play in the defence of our country. Some hon. Members have spoken about the existential risk posed to humanity by the most powerful AI models, but in an era of regional conflict and intensifying global competition, the notion that hostile state actors will observe international protocols on AI development are naive at best and dangerous at worst. AI has become indispensable to our defence capacity and security. The ability of AI to detect and neutralise cyber and biosecurity threats will become increasingly vital. High-tech AI drone warfare has drastically changed the nature of conflict, as we see in Ukraine. Put simply, the UK, working wherever possible with its international allies and partners, must be in a position to counter the deployment of AI systems that disregard the norms and ethics that the UK seeks to uphold.
We cannot afford to be left behind. We must develop our capabilities at speed, by tackling the barriers to the development of the UK AI industry, including the high costs of energy and the availability of investment. We must ensure that we are alive to, and safeguard against, the most serious emerging risks. With that in mind, will the Minister provide an update on the Government’s plans to support growth in the UK AI industry, including in relation to securing lawful access to reliable datasets for training?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler, for my first Westminster Hall debate. It is a particular pleasure not only to have you bring your technological expertise to the Chair, but for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to be reliably present in my first debate, as well as the UK’s—perhaps the world’s—first AI MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). It is a distinct pleasure to serve with everyone present and the expertise they bring. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this debate on AI safety. I am grateful to him and to all Members for their very thoughtful contributions to the debate.
It is no exaggeration to say that the future of our country and our prosperity will be led by science, technology and AI. That is exactly why, in response to the question on growth posed by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), we recently announced a package of new reforms and investments to use AI to power national renewal. We will drive growth through developing new AI growth zones across north and south Wales, Oxfordshire and the north-east, creating opportunities for innovation by expanding access to compute for British researchers and scientists.
We are investing in AI to drive breakthroughs in developing new drugs, cures and treatments. But we cannot harness those opportunities without ensuring that AI is safe for the British public and businesses, nor without agency over its development. I was grateful for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) on the importance of standards and the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) about the importance of trust.
That is why the Government are determined to make the UK one of the best places to start a business, to scale up, to stay on our shores, especially for the UK AI assurance and standards market. Our trusted third-party AI assurance roadmap and AI assurance innovation fund are focused on supporting the growth of UK businesses and organisations providing innovative AI products that are proven to be safe for sale and use. We must ensure that the AI transformation happens not to the UK but with and through the UK.
In consistency with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central, that is why we are backing the sovereign AI unit, with almost £500 million in investment, to help build and scale AI capabilities on British shores, which will reflect our country’s needs, values and laws. Our approach to those AI laws seeks to ensure that we balance growth and safety, and that we remain adaptable in the face of inevitable AI change.
On growth, I am glad to hear the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley about a space for businesses to experiment. We have announced proposals for an AI growth lab that will support responsible AI innovation by making targeted regulatory modifications under robust safeguards. That will help drive trust by providing a precisely safe space for experimentation and trialling of innovative products and services. Regulators will monitor that very closely.
On safety, we understand that AI is a general-purpose technology, with a wide range of applications. In recognition of the contribution from the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), I reaffirm some of the points he made about being thoughtful in regulatory approaches that distinguish between the technology and the specific use cases. That is why we believe that the vast majority of AI should be regulated at the point of use, where the risk relates and tractable action is most feasible.
A range of existing rules already applies to those AI systems in application contexts. Data protection and equality legislation protect the UK public’s data rights. They prevent AI-driven discrimination where the systems decide, for example, who is offered a job or credit. Competition law helps shields markets from AI uses that could distort them, including algorithmic collusion to set unfair prices.
Sarah Russell
As a specialist equality lawyer, I am not currently aware of any cases in the UK around the kind of algorithmic bias that I am talking about. I would be delighted to see some, and delighted to see the Minister encouraging that, but I am not sure that the regulatory framework would achieve that at present.
Kanishka Narayan
My hon. Friend brings deep expertise from her past career. If she feels there are particular absences in the legislation on equalities, I would be happy to take a look, though that has not been pointed out to me, to date.
The Online Safety Act 2023 requires platforms to manage harmful and illegal content risks, and offers significant protection against harms online, including those driven by AI services. We are supporting regulators to ensure that those laws are respected and enforced. The AI action plan commits to boosting AI capabilities through funding, strategic steers and increased public accountability.
There is a great deal of interest in the Government’s proposals for new cross-cutting AI regulation, not least shown compellingly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). The Government do not speculate on legislation, so I am not able to predict future parliamentary sessions, although we will keep Parliament updated on the timings of any consultation ahead of bringing forward any legislation.
Notwithstanding that, the Government are clearly not standing still on AI governance. The Technology Secretary confirmed in Parliament last week that the Government will look at what more can be done to manage the emergent risks of AI chatbots, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central and others.
Alongside the comments the Technology Secretary made, she urged Ofcom to use its existing powers to ensure AI chatbots in scope of the Act are safe for children. Further to the clarifications I have provided previously across the House, if hon. Members have a particular view on where there are exceptions or spaces in the Online Safety Act on AI chatbots that correlate with risk, we would welcome any contribution through the usual correspondence channels.
Kanishka Narayan
I have about two minutes, so I will continue the conversation with my hon. Friend outside.
We will act to ensure that AI companies are able to make their own products safe. For example, the Government are tackling the disgusting harm of child sexual exploitation and abuse with a new offence to criminalise AI models that have been optimised for that purpose. The AI Security Institute, which I was delighted to hear praised across the House, works with AI labs to make their products safer and has tested over 30 models at the frontier of development. It is uniquely the best in the world at developing partnerships, understanding security risks, and innovating safeguards, too. Findings from AISI testing are used to strengthen model safeguards in partnership with AI companies, improving safety in areas such as cyber-tasks and biological weapon development.
The UK Government do not act alone on security. In response to the points made by the hon. Members for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake), for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, and for Runnymede and Weybridge, it is clear that we are working closely with allies to raise security standards, share scientific insights and shape responsible norms for frontier AI. We are leading discussions on AI at the G7, the OECD and the UN. We are strengthening our bilateral relationships on AI for growth and security, including AI collaboration as part of recent agreements with the US, Germany and Japan.
I will take the points raised by the hon. Members for Dewsbury and Batley, for Winchester (Dr Chambers) and for Strangford, and by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on health advice, and how we can ensure that the quality of NHS advice is privileged in wider AI chatbot engagement, as well as the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East on British Sign Language standards in AI, which are important points that I will look further at.
To conclude, the UK is realising the opportunities for transformative AI while ensuring that growth does not come at the cost of security and safety. We do this through stimulating AI safety assurance markets, empowering our regulators and ensuring our laws are fit for purpose, driving change through AISI and diplomacy.
Iqbal Mohamed
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in this important debate. Amazing, informed and critical contributions have been made and it is important that the Government hear all of those.
There were issues that I did not have time to cover such as the military and ethical use of AI. I think the whole thing about ethical use in any field where AI or any technology is applied is important. It is really hard at the moment for AI to be trained in innate human, ethical and moral behavioural standards. That is a challenge that needs to be overcome.
Where there are actions taken by AI that can lead to harm, we should have human oversight and the four-eyes principle, or what we used to call GxP in the pharmaceutical industry, where a second person oversees certain approvals and decisions. Issues were raised around misinformation and the impact on our democracy, and also on the credibility and trustworthiness of individuals. Also raised was the gender imbalance and how AI represents men versus women, as well as the volume of data that is scraped and sourced from pornographic or illegitimate sexual violence against women videos. There should be a review of how that could be addressed quickly if AI regulation is not coming any time soon.
On the last couple of points, I just reiterate my call for the UK to bring itself up to the current international standards and start taking a lead in building on, developing and refining those so that they are not destructive and damaging to growth and progress. On the investments and subsidies that we provide for foreign tech companies, they are great at onshoring costs, taking tax reliefs and subsidies and offshoring profits, so we never, ever benefit from the gain and the profits. I hope the Minister will look into that. Again, I thank everyone.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved.
That this House has considered AI safety.
Village Schools
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
I will call Manuela Perteghella to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered village schools.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I sought the debate because of the importance of village schools to the lives of many of my families in the Stratford-on-Avon constituency living in rural communities. For many villages, the school is part of the fabric of rural life. It is what keeps a community thriving. It gives children a place of belonging, it brings parents and carers together and it sustains village identity and community cohesion. Many families choose to build their lives in rural south Warwickshire precisely because the village school is there.
Once a village loses its school, something irreplaceable is lost with it. I speak not only as a constituency MP but as someone who has served as a school governor of a small rural school for many years and whose own children attended a village primary. I know how much a child’s early learning environment matters, and for many children a small village school provides a sense of safety and familiarity that lays the foundation for confidence and aspiration. The relatively small size of a village school allows teachers to develop close relationships with pupils and families, to intervene early, and to support children who may otherwise feel lost in larger settings. For children with additional needs or those who struggle with busy environments, that can be transformative.
Rural schools, however, face a particular challenge with fluctuating pupil numbers. Housing developments take time to materialise. A quiet admissions year should never be misinterpreted as evidence that a school lacks potential. With the right support, schools can thrive at the heart of their communities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate. Not one of us does not have a small rural school; that is really important. I think of Loughries in my constituency—I mentioned it to her before the debate—which is a small hamlet just outside Newtownards. A few years ago, Loughries primary school was under some pressure financially, but it became an integrated primary school whereby it has been able to provide small classes focusing on providing education to rural children and promoting social development.
Does the hon. Lady agree that the Department for Education must always ensure that village schools have the funding and support they need so that children and parents in villages can rely on them to get a good education? We must also ensure that any risk of closure through poor funding is never allowed.
Manuela Perteghella
I fully agree with the hon. Member. I hope to hear from the Minister about funding for rural schools.
Nowhere has the pressure been felt more deeply in my constituency than at Great Alne primary school, which is threatened with closure by Reform-led Warwickshire county council. In recent months, I have received heartfelt testimonies from parents, former pupils, former members of staff and the community. They describe a school that is not simply an educational setting but a family. They spoke of small classes where every child is known, of all the residents coming into school to read, to join lunchtime activities and to share talks on space, and of children visiting the retirement village to sing Christmas carols, forging intergenerational friendships. They told me that the school has been the beating heart of the village: a place where friendships form, where confidence grows and where children who might struggle in larger settings are able to thrive.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Schools are not only at the heart of village communities but make living in rural villages in North Norfolk viable for young families. Without village schools, working-age parents simply cannot live in these areas and will leave for towns and cities, but the current funding formula does not recognise the importance of these schools to communities as a whole. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must review the funding formula and ensure that rural village schools have the protection of a funding floor before, for many, it is too late?
Manuela Perteghella
I agree with my hon. Friend. Village schools are exceptional because of their location and the isolated, remote communities that they serve.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
In my constituency, there are two local village schools—one in Laycock and one in Lydiard Millicent—that provide a fantastic opportunity for working families. Without them, those children would not be able to get to school via public transport, because it is so poor. That would mean that the parents would have to give up work. Does my hon. Friend agree that children’s education should not be penalised simply because of where they live and the lack of access to good transport so typical of rural areas?
Manuela Perteghella
My hon. Friend puts it so well. I will come to the challenges of transport in rural areas shortly.
I have received so many powerful accounts from my constituents showing how a school and its community reach each other, for example, through festivals organised by parents, bacon bap mornings, Santa’s sleigh, and tree planting with residents. Those experiences give children a sense of belonging and pride in their place, and teach them about the wider community. I thank every parent, carer and resident past and present who wrote to me and has worked so hard to support Great Alne in difficult circumstances.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
My hon. Friend has mentioned those involved in making sure that schools function. For village schools across my area, such as in Scotton and Burton Leonard, parent teacher associations are having to fund the bare minimum and basics. Temporary classrooms that are not fit for purpose are now being used permanently. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a better funding model for village schools?
Manuela Perteghella
Absolutely. As they are unique, the Government need to look again at how these important schools—these community hubs—are funded. I will continue to make the case for support, stability and a future for Great Alne primary school.
In parts of the country, including mine, there are growing concerns about how school transport arrangements are being handled. In Warwickshire, those concerns have intensified following proposals brought forward by the Reform-run county council. It has become clear, from both the consultation documents and the council’s public statements, that the leadership does not fully understand the realities of rural life in south Warwickshire. The Reform-run county council’s new policy suggests that unlit rural lanes can still be considered safe walking routes for children. It assumes that pupils, including those with additional needs, can rely on public transport that does not exist in many rural villages. It implies that families can use disability benefits to fund transport that should be statutory. Those ideas reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the geography of south Warwickshire and the pressures that families face every single day.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a similar story in rural Devon. In my constituency, schools in Broadhempston and Bishopsteignton are seeing falling roll numbers. Without the critical input of a core funding floor and help with transport, those schools may eventually close, which will kill those villages. We must not allow that to happen.
Manuela Perteghella
I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. I will talk shortly about what happens if such schools close down—what happens to the wider community and how that reverberates.
Parents tell me that the nearest village school is not merely a preference; it is the only school that they can safely and realistically access. When councils start consultation on closures without engaging properly with those who rely on these services, the consequences are serious. With proper, meaningful support rather than a managed decline, village schools with fluctuating numbers would thrive once again.
These concerns are closely linked to road safety. I frequently receive letters from schools, teachers, parents and pupils across Stratford-on-Avon raising concerns that the roads around their communities and schools are not safe enough. Only last month I visited Mappleborough Green Church of England primary school, where the children explained how cars are failing to stop at their pedestrian lights, how they have seen fast-moving traffic and overtaking near the crossing, and how these near misses make them feel anxious on their journeys to school along a busy road. I say directly to those pupils that they made their voices heard, and I have written to Warwickshire county council to ask for urgent action on the measures that the children have proposed.
When children tell us that they do not feel safe crossing the road outside their school, we must listen. Government and local highway authorities need to be far more responsive to the needs of communities. Safety is not optional. It is basic, it is every day, and it must be delivered.
When a village school closes, the impact is immediate. Children face more difficult and dangerous journeys to the next school. Parents absorb new costs that they cannot manage. The delicate social fabric of villages begins to fray. Any policy decisions about the future of rural schools must take account of these realities. They cannot be reduced to administrative convenience. Decisions are being made in a way that is detached from rural life and the people who will feel the consequences first.
For the Liberal Democrats, education is the best investment that a country can make in its future. Years of underfunding have left schools trying to manage rising costs, delayed repairs, and stretched staff resources, as we have heard from Members across the House. I welcome the steps the Government have taken to increase the school budget, expand free school meals for the poorest families, and strengthen the pupil premium. These are positive measures, but they will not, by themselves, guarantee the stability that rural schools need.
Rural schools cannot be left behind. We believe that school and college funding must rise above inflation each year, that the backlog of repairs must finally be addressed, and that every school should have a dedicated mental health professional, so that families can seek help early where they are. These improvements matter across the system, and rural schools have a really important community-hub role in isolated and remote areas.
Village schools also have a broader economic and social value. They keep younger families in the area, and contribute to a diverse age mix in villages, so that villages thrive. Services remain in villages, and they support local early years provision and help maintain a balanced community. When a school disappears, the village becomes a different place. Fewer families settle there; services decline; buses get reduced because they are no longer commercially viable; and community resilience weakens—long-term consequences follow from short-term decisions.
As a member of the Education Committee, I see the national picture as well as the local one. It is clear that we need a more coherent approach to rural education, one that recognises the pressures that schools face and supports their long-term sustainability. Closure should never be the default option; it should come only after every possible alternative has been explored. Village schools support families and strengthen community. They deserve real support, and not to be subject to managed decline, as in many cases. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for securing a debate on this important matter. I share her commitment to investment in education; it is at the core of our opportunity mission, which is why we continue to invest in schools.
We have heard from the hon. Member and others about the importance of rural schools. We recognise the essential role that rural schools play in their communities. We know that to preserve access for young children, local authorities may need to maintain more empty places in schools in rural areas than in urban areas. Small schools generally receive more funding per pupil than larger schools, in recognition of the circumstances that they face.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Minister says that rural schools receive more funding per pupil than urban schools, but one of my local headmasters, who previously taught in London, tells me that he received £10,000 per pupil in London but only £5,000 in West Dorset. That suggests that the Treasury funding model simply does not reflect the increased cost of living and of providing services in rural Britain. Will the Minister have conversations with the Treasury to get rurality included as a metric in its funding model?
Georgia Gould
The national funding formula accounts for the challenges faced by small schools in rural areas, both through the lump sum and through the sparsity factor. In 2025-26, primary schools eligible for sparsity funding attract up to £57,400, and all other schools eligible for sparsity funding attract up to £83,400. However, if the hon. Gentleman writes to me about the particular circumstances he raises, I will be very happy to look into them.
Today’s discussion has focused on the future of Great Alne primary school, a small rural school located on the edge of Great Alne, a village in Warwickshire. As I think the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon pointed out, it has been at the heart of the village for over 180 years, educating generations of families. It is known for its small class sizes and close-knit environment and offers a setting in which pupils receive individual attention. Its ethos, “responsible, respectful, ready”, reflects a commitment to nurturing well-rounded learners and positive values.
We believe that decisions about school closures always need careful reflection. They affect pupils, families and communities deeply. As part of this Government’s commitment to supporting every child to achieve and thrive, we want to ensure that every child has access to high-quality education in a sustainable setting. Great Alne primary school serves children aged between four and 11. It has an operational capacity of 105 places, but currently only 21 pupils are on roll, so just 20% of the available places are being used.
The Department has set out guidance to local authorities to support them in carefully considering whether school closure is appropriate. The local authority considers that it has followed the guidance and has actively sought to keep the school open. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon knows, the local authority has now progressed to the stage of consulting stakeholders on potential closure proposals.
Local authorities must ensure sufficient school places and manage the school estate efficiently. When school capacity data shows limited capacity in the immediate area for some year groups, the local authority has confirmed that spaces are available in neighbouring areas for any displaced pupils.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
In my Hazel Grove constituency, the most rural area is Mellor. We have children from primary schools looking to go to Marple Hall, which is their nearest secondary school. Marple Hall has recently joined an academy trust, and of course different rules about admissions come with that. It is causing parents a lot of consternation about the future admissions policy. I wonder whether the Minister could comment on any plans that she and her colleagues have to look at how academies can set their admissions policy to ensure that all local children get a good local secondary place of their choosing.
Georgia Gould
As the hon. Member will be aware, local authorities have a responsibility to ensure that all children have a sufficient place. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is progressing through the House of Lords, has some changes around admissions that we think will ensure that children get a place at a school that meets their needs.
The Department for Education recognises the importance of supporting rural schools and the educational offer in Warwickshire. We have worked in partnership with Warwickshire local authorities since Ofsted published an inspection report of “inadequate” in January 2023. Local authorities hold the statutory place-planning function, ensuring that there are sufficient schools to meet pupil needs. This includes collaborating with academy trusts and partners to balance supply and demand in line with changing demographics.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Ind)
It is not just about money. In my constituency of Penrith and Solway, we have seen the unrestricted change of use of properties from homes to holiday lets, which has led to the depopulation of villages and has undermined local schools. I understand that the Minister for Housing and Planning is currently deliberating on the regulation of the self-catering sector. Will the Minister raise this issue as part of those deliberations?
Georgia Gould
I thank the hon. Member for raising that critical issue. I would be happy to raise it to ensure that the impact on school places is taken into account as part of the decision making. I thank him for championing it.
We recognise these challenges. That is why we published “Running rural primary schools efficiently”, which examines how to run small rural schools effectively. Alongside it, “Opening and closing maintained schools” sets out statutory guidance for local authorities considering school closures. The guidance includes a presumption against the closure of rural schools. That does not, however, mean that a rural school will never close, but the case for closure must be strong and it must be clearly in the best interests of educational provision in the area.
I also want to respond to the points that have been made about home-to-school transport. We believe that it is critical for supporting children into education. I understand that Warwickshire county council has written to the Secretary of State with proposals to ask children to walk a greater distance, and the Secretary of State has responded very strongly against those proposals.
Tom Gordon
The home-to-school transport issue has affected people across North Yorkshire. One of the campaigners, Jo Foster, has been leading and working with the School Transport Action Group and has highlighted the inconsistency in the local authority’s approach. It used to be catchment-based, which makes sense in big rural areas that follow dales, rather than insisting that children must go to the nearest school geographically as the crow flies, which does not make sense. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that local authorities listen to parents on the ground and ensuring that children can get to the schools their siblings go to, on the routes that they used to be able to reach by public transport? That simply does not exist under these new provisions.
Georgia Gould
I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue, on which we are working with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. If he writes to me about his specific concerns, I will make sure that they are raised as part of our ongoing work.
Ministers have no direct role in the local statutory process or decision-making arrangements for changes to maintained rural schools. These decisions rest with the local authority. We understand that Warwickshire county council has begun the pre-statutory process for a potential closure by 31 August 2026, which includes full consultation with parents, staff and the wider community. This is a significant decision, and we recognise the strength of local feeling. Our priority remains ensuring that every child receives the highest-quality education, and we will continue to work closely with Warwickshire county council throughout this process to achieve that goal. I welcome the specific points that have been made, and I will follow up on everything that has been discussed today.
Question put and agreed to.
International Human Rights Day 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered International Human Rights Day 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Butler. I am grateful to hon. Members for attending this debate on International Human Rights Day, a day marked each year on 10 December. The debate follows last week’s parliamentary reception, organised by the all-party parliamentary human rights group and Amnesty International, which was a reminder that across the parties there remains a deep commitment to defending rights and exposing abuses. I declare an interest as an officer on that APPG, which was founded in 1976 by the late Lord Avebury. For decades the group has raised the profile of international human rights issues in Parliament and publicised abuses wherever they occur. I am proud to support its work.
Human rights are under attack. They are dismissed as a “criminal’s charter”, treated as obstacles to power, or caricatured as a wish list and then ridiculed. But they were not invented for convenience; they were forged in the aftermath of the second world war after mass killing, torture and the attempted annihilation of a people. We made a promise then that every life has value, every person deserves protection from persecution and discrimination. Those principles are not museum pieces; they are the foundations of our daily freedoms to meet, to protest, to worship, to speak, to be tried fairly and to be treated equally. When those protections are removed, the consequences are immediate and brutal: arbitrary detention for peaceful critics, presumption of guilt, scapegoating of minorities, and the machinery of cruelty—torture, disappearances and killings. That is the flipside of abandoning rights.
We see the consequences in many places. Russia’s repression at home accompanies aggression abroad. The situation in Gaza and the west bank has produced devastating civilian suffering and wider regional instability. Sudan’s civil war has brought reports of ethnic annihilation. In China, Uyghurs and Tibetans face systemic repression and Hong Kong’s freedoms have been considerably narrowed. There are other urgent cases that rarely dominate headlines: Belarus, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Venezuela and the too-often-forgotten Azerbaijan, Burma, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Haiti, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Turkey and Turkmenistan. They have different histories and different politics but the pattern repeats: rights are sidelined to preserve power, justified by appeals to stability, law and order, counter-terrorism or tradition. The techniques are often familiar: they divide communities, distort information, silence independent voices, and pass laws that look reasonable but are designed to intimidate.
This is not only a distant problem. Even established democracies feel the pull of strongman politics. Populism is dressed up as dynamic quick fixes, decisive leaders and fewer constraints, but rights and democratic norms are the price of that apparent speed. Populism feeds on disillusion and polarisation. It treats rights as optional. The global trend is clear, as highlighted by the Economist Intelligence Unit’s latest democracy index. In 2024, fewer people lived in full democracies than in previous years—only 6.6% of people globally. Where democratic space shrinks, the vulnerable suffer first. People should be careful what they wish for. The early gains of a charismatic leader can lead to the long-term cost of fear and division.
We in Britain have a proud tradition of defending rights. That tradition is not abstract. It was built by people who risked and sometimes gave their lives for freedom. We must build on that legacy and be mindful that our conduct matters abroad. When Britain falls short, others point and follow.
Why should we care about abuses overseas? Because they affect us. Russia’s aggression threatens European security. Conflict in the middle east reverberates across the region. Human rights collapse abroad can undermine our national security, invite foreign interference, corrode our democratic institutions, damage trade relationships and—yes—drive refugee flows. But there is also the moral case to stand with those persecuted for exercising fundamental rights, and to support human rights defenders who risk everything to hold power to account. If we are serious about ending impunity, we must back the institutions that exist to hold abusers to account, such as the International Criminal Court, a court of last resort for victims. ICC officials have been placed under US sanctions in a worrying attempt to intimidate the very people who pursue accountability.
Now, more than ever, such institutions need our practical support, not token words. We have tools at home to help us promote, protect and advance rights abroad. The overseas security and justice assistance guidance, arms export licensing criteria, targeted sanctions and assessments of business and human rights compliance are useful, but they must be used consistently and transparently and be properly overseen. Ministers and officials need clearer guidance and better cross-departmental knowledge sharing, so our message does not drift. Trade envoys should be briefed on political and human rights risks so they can promote responsible businesses. Courts should be empowered to exercise universal jurisdiction over the gravest crimes.
Businesses should have certainty about their obligations to prevent and remedy human rights and environmental harms across supply chains. International leadership is often uncomfortable: it means saying hard things to countries with whom we also want to trade and co-operate and holding firm when headlines move on, but it is necessary.
On this International Human Rights Day we should celebrate what has been achieved—the institutions built and the freedoms defended—and speak plainly about what remains to be done. At home, we must protect rights and strengthen democratic practice. Abroad, we must keep rights central to our engagement, even when that complicates other objectives. That is not work for Government alone. Parliamentarians, civil society and individuals each have a role. Authoritarianism grows when people look away. Rights decay when silence becomes the norm. The antidote is collective effort and moral clarity. Again, on this day, let us recommit to the principles forged out of the worst of human history—principles that protect the best of human possibility. Let us stand with the persecuted, defend the defenders, and act in ways that match our words. I urge the Minister to reaffirm the UK’s leadership in defending universal rights, and I look forward to contributions from hon. Members across the House.
I end with the often repeated words of Martin Niemöller, a German Lutheran pastor who first supported Hitler and then became a critic and was imprisoned. His warning against apathy remains as sharp today as when it was first spoken:
“First they came for the socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
Order. Please stick to three-minute speeches. There is likely to be a Division in the middle of the debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. We owe a big thank you to the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) for setting the scene incredibly well—well done him. I should declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which speaks for those with Christian beliefs, those with other beliefs and those with no belief.
Across the world, millions of individuals face discrimination, intimidation, imprisonment and violence simply for practising their faith or holding their beliefs. From restrictions on worship to targeted attacks by state and non-state actors, their fundamental freedoms are violated daily. We live in a world where persecution in one place ripples into many others. The global community is interconnected, and so too are the consequences of neglect. Human dignity is not divisible. When any group is denied their right to believe, gather and live openly, every part of society is diminished.
The United Kingdom has a long tradition of defending freedom of religion or belief worldwide. The Bishop of Truro’s review in 2018 laid bare the scale of global Christian persecution. I acknowledge that the Government have made progress, but without sustained political will from the Minister and the Government, who are, I believe, committed to this, those abuses will continue unchecked.
What can we do? We can strengthen our diplomatic pressure on states where persecution is widespread.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as the UN penholder for Sudan, the UK has the moral responsibility to ensure the ongoing human rights travesty there does not continue, most importantly by ending all arms trade to the United Arab Emirates?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is right to bring up that issue, which has figured in every question about the subject. The Government must take action on that. If there is an evidential base, we need to act on it.
Levels of oppression across the world have reached near-genocidal intensity in some regions, so the UK and this Government need a more robust and strategic response. We must put diplomatic pressure on states and ensure that aid programmes prioritise vulnerable minorities. We should expand training for our diplomats and work with international partners to collect evidence, monitor abuses and pursue accountability. We can step up to advocate for those who are marginalised, silenced and oppressed around the world—those who are not only left behind but actively suppressed by the very nations that should protect them. We must uphold the principle that no person should ever fear violence, exclusion or imprisonment because of their faith. That is a daily reality for Christians in countries such as Nigeria, Pakistan, North Korea, Eritrea and others that seldom make the headlines. That is why this work is so urgent.
On this International Human Rights Day, let us renew our resolve. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland must continue to lead, advocate and act. Our words carry weight and our actions will determine whether persecuted communities feel the protection that this Parliament pledges. I urge the Government and all colleagues to press forward more boldly, more consistently and with clear purpose to defend the rights of Christians worldwide and uphold the universal freedoms that safeguard us all.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I am sure we will be interrupted by a Division any minute now, but it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) on securing this debate, aptly on International Human Rights Day itself.
I declare an interest: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary human rights group. Last week, I hosted our International Human Rights Day reception, together with Amnesty International UK, which was well attended. It showed that human rights remain a priority across Parliament and among all parliamentarians. Today marks the progress of the international human rights framework, now supported by more than 60 treaties protecting vulnerable groups, including women, children and persons with disabilities. Next year, the United Nations will begin drafting a new convention on the rights of older persons—a process I hope the UK Government will fully support. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to that.
The theme of this year’s International Human Rights Day is how human rights shape and improve everyday lives. In democratic countries, rights are largely respected, which is reflected in how we live, although we can never afford complacency. It is often said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Some colleagues will raise domestic concerns, but I will focus on the international dimension and its purpose for those who do not enjoy many rights in daily life. The rights framework empowers people, providing standards based on entitlement to state protection by which they can judge and call out Government actions.
I want to highlight the work of human rights defenders —lawyers, journalists, activists, community workers and trade unionists—who peacefully promote and protect rights, support victims and hold perpetrators accountable. They take great risks to spotlight abuses and seek redress, facing reprisals from state and non-state actors, harassment, imprisonment, statelessness, exile, torture and, in the worst cases, disappearance and death.
According to Front Line Defenders, at least 324 human rights defenders in 32 countries were killed in 2024, with the highest numbers in Colombia, Mexico, Guatemala, Palestine and Brazil. This year, the APPG met human rights defenders from many countries—most recently from Mexico, Cambodia, Peru, Myanmar and Belarus. International support matters and can help to protect those people. I urge consideration of mandatory supply chain due diligence to protect human rights and the environment, modelled on the UK Bribery Act 2010, creating civil liability for businesses failing to prevent such harms.
Finally, parliamentarians can help to advance global respect for rights. As chair of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I highlight the role of parliamentary diplomacy in discussing human rights issues and the excellent work of the British Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in facilitating it. Let us continue to work together to promote respect for international human rights networks as a pathway to solutions for real-world challenges, armed conflict, marginalisation, polarisation and economic inequality.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) for securing the debate. I declare an interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary human rights group.
I will start by highlighting the work of environmental human rights defenders and indigenous rights defenders, who are in need of our continued support. Their vital work protecting the land, health and livelihoods of their communities can be extremely dangerous. The 2025 Global Witness report documented the killing of 146 such defenders, the majority in Latin America, including 48 in Colombia, which has had the most killings globally for the past three years in a row, followed by Guatemala, where 20 defenders were killed last year. That is shocking.
Two thirds of the cases are linked to land or land reform, and indigenous people are disproportionately targeted. To mention two emblematic cases, Berta Cáceres from Honduras, a celebrated indigenous Lenca leader and Goldman environmental prize winner, was murdered in 2016 for her resistance to the Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam. Her case became a major international warning about the risks faced by activists. Fikile Ntshangase, a South African activist, was shot dead in her home in 2020 for her leading role in a campaign against a coalmine. These women were incredibly brave—absolute icons and leading lights of international human rights work.
There are so many other unsung heroes doing the same. Claudia Ignacio Álvarez, from Mexico, whom the all-party group recently hosted, has faced threats and forced displacement for her work defending rural and indigenous communities. In Indonesia, Dewi Anakoda, an indigenous Tobelo woman, has received death threats and been violently attacked for helping journalists to expose the destruction of the neighbouring uncontacted Hongana Manyawa people’s territory resulting from the mining of nickel for electric vehicles.
It is vital that the renewable energy transition does not come at the expense of communities whose rights and environments are often very negatively affected by the mining of critical minerals. Co-ordinated global action is necessary to avoid replicating the terrible errors of the fossil fuel age in critical mineral mining.
In that connection, I note concerns expressed by some non-governmental organisations about the UK’s recently published critical minerals strategy. The Government still have a window of opportunity, through the Department for Business and Trade’s review of responsible business conduct, to ensure that we stop environmental devastation and human rights abuse in critical mineral supply chains. I hope that that will recommend the adoption of mandatory supply chain due diligence to protect human rights and the environment, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
There are many other human rights issues to mention. It is vital that we all work together to resist the push-back against women’s rights globally, as well as the horrific ongoing human rights abuses in Gaza and Sudan. It is so important that the UK Government step up to the plate and do their duty.
I finish by asking the Minister the question that I did not manage to ask the PM today. Given that it is Human Rights Day, and given that the UN has made absolutely clear that the global cuts in foreign aid are having a severely detrimental effect on the protection of human rights around the world, will the Government restore the UK’s global aid budget to defend human rights?
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I am delighted to be speaking in this debate about International Human Rights Day and I congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) on securing it. I declare an interest as the UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. It will come as no surprise that I will focus on reminding us all that our history in this country places freedom, including religious freedom, at the heart of who we are as a nation and therefore at the heart of what we seek to achieve in the world around us.
Our country took many centuries to reach the point that we are at now. Thousands of British people have died over the centuries, because they worshipped in the wrong way or did not worship at all. In fact, our country’s relationship with religious freedom is in essence our history. I challenge us all to put a finger down on any part of British history at random and not to see that what is there is linked to religious freedom in some way, for better or for worse. Slowly, however, we developed a better way forward. As our country has become more tolerant, diverse and peaceful, we have moved from strength to strength. Who we are as a nation is wrapped up in the religious freedoms that have evolved into the superb protections that we now call human rights.
In one area, however, we seriously lag behind and that, ironically, is sometimes in our ignorance of the importance of religious freedom in this country and especially around the world, which is my responsibility. Our country is covered with churches from all over the world, yet sometimes we could be forgiven for thinking that religion is a private or unimportant matter. The rest of the world looks at us and thinks, “That’s crazy”, because everywhere else, religion is a major factor in people’s lives.
The world’s largest atheistic state, China, takes religion incredibly seriously. Religion is the main threat to the Chinese Communist party, so the Chinese authorities are busy stomping out Buddhism and the freedom of Buddhists, persecuting Falun Gong sects and shutting down churches. That is why, in July this year, I was pleased to speak at the Human Rights Council in Geneva to challenge the Chinese Communist party on its attempt to interfere with the succession of the next Dalai Lama. The world’s most heavily nuclear-armed state, Russia, takes religion seriously, too, and Russian identity is built on the belief that it is the home of the faithful Church. The world’s richest country, the United States, takes religion incredibly seriously and has a whole office for international religious freedom in its State Department. That is because being denied freedom to believe denies our humanity, and it heralds the coming of darkness.
I am proud of the UK’s record of championing FORB through being an early supporter of the universal declaration of human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights, because we have learned the importance of freedom of religion or belief. It is central to who we are, and we cannot separate it from British values. I am proud to be the MP for North Northumberland, which is home to Holy Island, where historically Vikings attacked British Christians. Over the centuries, however, Northumberland has become a place where people are free to believe what they want to believe. It is tolerant and everyone has the right to believe and confess how they wish. That is my vision for British foreign policy. We must remember that freedom of religion or belief is central to our foreign policy and having a values-led and freedom-focused foreign policy.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) on his excellent speech. We are celebrating International Human Rights Day, and the universal declaration of human rights was set up, as we all know, in the wake of the second world war, to set out the foundations for our rules-based system and our human rights. It stated that we are all equal and emphasised our common humanity.
These are the foundations for a peaceful world and peaceful societies, yet 77 years on from the universal declaration we have more global conflicts than ever. More than 60 were recorded by the UN for last year. There are conflicts on most continents, but we will be particularly aware of the conflicts in the middle east, in Palestine and Israel, Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen; in sub-Saharan Africa, in South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic; and of course in Ukraine. But there are also conflicts in Asia—in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir. We had a debate earlier on Kashmir—a very much unforgotten conflict. Also on that list are Myanmar, Thailand and Cambodia.
Conflict particularly affects women and children. I was struck by the figure that one in six children globally is affected by or lives in an area where there is a conflict—one in six children globally is affected by conflict. As much as the moral imperative to work on this resonates with us, there is also a pragmatic aspect to our response. We know that 123 million people have been forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict and violence.
I want to mention Parliamentarians for Peace, which we set up in the wake of the terrorist attack in Israel in 2023 and the subsequent bombardment and killing of civilians in Gaza—again, particularly women and children. As parliamentarians, we have such an important role to play through our community leadership and by setting out our belief in and commitment to human rights and our common humanity. That is so important. We have a unique responsibility to engender cohesion, promote peace and support the conditions for peaceful societies. I am going to leave it there, but I will just emphasise this. I am glad that we are all here today and making these speeches, but there are a lot more whom we need to try to encourage to be part of the Parliamentarians for Peace movement.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) on securing the debate. This year marks 75 years since the European convention on human rights, and 25 years since the implementation of the Human Rights Act in UK law. The longevity of these institutions can make them feel permanent and secure, but history teaches us the opposite—rights endure only when they are actively defended.
One of the great privileges I have in this place is serving as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I see frequently how human rights shape real lives—not just in high-profile cases, but in decisions about housing, healthcare, liberty, safety, family life and the right to protest. That is why the theme of this year’s International Human Rights Day, “Our Everyday Essentials”, matters so deeply. Human rights are not abstract legal theories; they are the foundations of ordinary freedom.
As the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway outlined so eloquently, Britain has helped to lead the world on human rights. After the devastation of the second world war, it was the British Government who helped to create the European convention, and the UK was its first signatory. We should be proud of that legacy, but today, in a more unstable, polarised and authoritarian global climate, the legacy is under direct strain.
We have heard from many hon. Members, from across the Chamber, about many examples of human rights abuses and horrendous situations happening in Palestine, Sudan and other places. I will pick up just a couple of those. In Sudan for the past two years, there have been repeated warnings about the re-emergence of the pattern that had been seen there before. Whistleblowers inside the Foreign Office have revealed that explicit warnings of impending genocide were removed from official documents as early as 2023, despite the assessments of the Government’s own analysts. That is not just a failure of foresight; it is a complete lack of responsibility. I would like to hear from the Minister what more could be done to understand how that happened.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has already published major reports in this parliamentary session, including on transnational repression, the impact of slave labour in global supply chains, and the failure to prosecute British nationals for the crimes of genocide against Yazidis and others. I encourage and invite Members to read them if they have not already done so. The JCHR report on transnational repression documents how authoritarian regimes extend their reach into Britain, placing bounties on dissidents, harassing families, issuing threats and, in the most severe cases, making attempts on lives on British soil.
In our work on slave labour, we have exposed in further detail, from lived experience and evidence, how Uyghur Muslims and children in the DRC are trapped into forced labour that is linked directly into western supply chains. Let us be clear: human rights abuses are not a distant history; they are embedded in the modern global economy.
We know that China has sanctioned several British parliamentarians and we know that Chinese-linked espionage has penetrated the Palace of Westminster. We know about the mass repression in Xinjiang, yet the Government appear willing to approve a vast new Chinese embassy in central London regardless. What I would like to know, as I am sure many Members would, is: what will be said when the Prime Minister goes to Beijing? Will he raise concerns? Will he raise those cases? The House of Commons had previously placed on the record—it is logged in Hansard—its recognition of the genocide in Xinjiang at the hands of President XI. Will the PM demand an end to transnational repression and slave labour, or will he simply hand over the deeds to a new embassy as a reward for repression, espionage and sanctions against British MPs?
If we are serious about the theme of human rights as everyday essentials, it is important that we look at home, too. We must be serious about defending the rights of trans and non-binary people. Trans rights are human rights, full stop. They have the right to live with dignity, the right to safety, the right to healthcare and the right to exist without fear. Yet trans people have been relentlessly targeted by culture war politics, hostile media narratives and irresponsible rhetoric by politicians of all parties. Their healthcare has been politicised, their identities turned into ideological battlegrounds, and the result is not abstract. It is rising hate crime, worsening mental health and people driven out of living lives as they would wish.
I have recently had a number of trans people reaching out to my office. They have experienced horrendous situations and even ended up with suicidal ideation. It is clearly happening and should not be hidden or ignored. A society that picks and chooses whose rights deserve protection is a society that has already abandoned the universality of human rights. Across the world and here at home, we are witnessing the rise of populist movements that deliberately seek to weaken human rights. We hear that the rights protect the wrong people, that judges are the enemy, and that international law is a foreign imposition. This is a textbook strategy: undermine the courts, discredit the media, erode democratic institutions, and then hollow out the protections that restrain power. History tells us exactly where that path leads.
Human rights were not created to be convenient. They were created to protect people when it is most inconvenient, when fear runs at its highest and minorities are most vulnerable. The assault on rights is no longer confined abroad. The Government have failed to repeal repressive protest laws and are now proposing to restrict jury trials. They are even flirting with diluting the European convention on human rights as we speak. It took the Liberal Democrats to stand up to Reform in October when it tried to scrap the UK’s participation in the convention with a 10-minute rule Bill, while the Labour Front Bench abstained. Ministers claim they want to confront the far right, but the surest way to fuel extremism is to concede the ground of principle.
Undermining protections for the vulnerable is not strength; it is surrender. This is not reform; it is not responsible scrutiny. It is a systematic attempt to weaken the architecture that shields every one of us from the abuse of power. Human rights are not a gift from the Government. They are not conditional and not a political favour. They are the bedrock of a free society protecting the protester, the journalist, the minority, the prisoner, the refugee and ultimately the citizen.
On this International Human Rights Day, the challenge before us is stark. Either we defend those everyday essentials—imperfect, hard won and absolutely vital—or we allow them to be dismantled in the name of short-term politics. I know which side of that choice I am on, and so does my party. I urge this House and the country to choose human rights not just in words today, but in action every single day.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler.
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) for securing this debate, and for his thoughtful and reflective introduction, marking International Human Rights Day 2025. Every year on 10 December we pause to reaffirm the universal and enduring values that underpin the universal declaration of human rights. This year’s theme is “Human rights: our everyday essentials”. At a time of turbulence and unpredictability, when many in our own country and across the world feel a growing sense of insecurity, the reminder that human rights are the foundations of dignity in our daily lives could not be more important.
Fundamental rights are under immense and sustained pressure. An axis of authoritarian states is working deliberately to undermine the international order and the very concept of universal rights. In Iran, the tyrannical regime continues its repression of women and minorities, censoring the media, jailing dissenters and enforcing coercive control. In Russia, President Putin has entrenched a political environment incompatible with free and fair elections: criminalising free speech, shutting down NGOs and exporting violence through his illegal invasion of Ukraine.
China’s actions remain profoundly concerning, from the persecution of Uyghurs in Xinjiang to the steady erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong. The national security law is now routinely deployed to silence critics, including Jimmy Lai who, at 78 and in ill health, remains in solitary confinement for nothing more than speaking out. Tibet, too, remains one of the most heavily suppressed regions in the world. Sadly, those are not isolated cases; as we have heard in this debate, there are many other examples. They represent a challenge to the international system itself, and they demand a response that is marked in both principle and resolve.
Today, though, I will speak particularly about those suffering in active conflict zones. In Sudan, the ongoing conflict has seen civilians targeted indiscriminately. Satellite evidence points to mass killings and the disposal of bodies by the Rapid Support Forces. What progress has been made since the international humanitarian conference that the Government hosted, and what further steps will the UK take to ensure that commitments translate into protection for civilians on the ground?
In Ukraine, the forced deportation and re-education of children by the Russian state remains one of the most shocking war crimes of our generation, with an estimated 45,000 children abducted. It is shocking. Some are placed with Russian families under coercive adoption programmes, while others undergo militarisation training. Can the Minister provide us with an update on the Government’s work to support efforts to secure the return of these abducted children to their parents? I know there is a lot of interest in this topic right across the House.
It is in this wider context of global crises that we must also carefully assess the UK’s spending on development and ensure that the aid budget is spent wisely and effectively against clear priorities. How are the Government ensuring that the UK upholds human rights and protects the most vulnerable abroad?
In the middle east we all share the deep hope that diplomatic efforts will soon secure a full and sustained end to the conflict. But we cannot discuss the human impact of the conflict without remembering the final Israeli hostage, whose continued captivity prolongs trauma and prevents healing. To be clear, all hostages must be released and humanitarian access must be upheld.
This debate falls on the final day of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. I want to highlight the alarming rise in the online abuse of women and girls. One in three women in the UK has experienced online abuse. Technology promised empowerment, yet for too many it has become a tool of coercion, harassment and intimidation.
The UK has a proud tradition of defending human rights, freedoms and the rule of law. From the Opposition Benches we have continued to press the Government on their commitments, whether on consular rights for citizens facing human rights violations abroad or on the need for robust action in relation to our adversaries who seek to undermine international law.
Debbie Abrahams
Does the shadow Minister think that the Opposition’s current position has changed markedly from their position when they were in government?
Wendy Morton
We have made our position very clear when it comes to the defence budget. Obviously, as we get nearer to another election, we will set out more detail.
Today—International Human Rights Day 2025—is an important day. It is a really good opportunity for us all to come together, not just to highlight some of the many cases around the world but to show that the UK has a proud record of standing up for and defending those rights.
As the Opposition, it is important that we continue to hold Ministers to their word, because the protection of human rights goes far beyond party lines; it speaks to who we are as a nation and the role that we seek to play in the world. Let us work together across this House to ensure that the rights and freedoms we cherish become a lived reality for all.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Ms Butler. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) for securing this debate and for his work with the APPG on human rights.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for his long-standing commitment to human rights as a shadow Minister, through his work with the Inter-Parliamentary Union and his work in this House over what I believe is now 28 years—I am testing my memory. I am grateful to him, too.
I congratulate the APPG, and all those Members who declared their interest today, on the International Human Rights Day events it held last week. I am genuinely sorry not to have been there. The reason, you will be glad to hear, Ms Butler, is because I was in Jamaica looking at the horrific aftermath of Hurricane Melissa and at the work the UK Government have been doing out there since the hurricane as we build towards reconstruction.
I will try to answer the questions that have been asked, but I am conscious of time. The hon. Member for Penrith and Solway asked about overseas security and justice assistance guidance, and I reassure him that we are in the process of reviewing the OSJA guidance to make sure it is effective, up to date and clear to internal users across His Majesty’s Government. And we support the independence of the ICC—I cannot be clearer than that. We do not support sanctioning individuals or organisations associated with the court, which I hope gives him some reassurance.
Today I have played my part in marking International Human Rights Day, which is an important occasion. Earlier, in the Foreign Office, I hosted more than 100 parliamentarians, academics, diplomats and campaigners from around the world—the commitment and determination in that room was simply inspiring. Among those present were human rights defenders from as far afield as Malawi and Mexico.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) mentioned Claudia, who was there today to speak on a panel about the work she has done, not just in recent times but throughout her life. I was so sorry to hear that her niece had been killed as a human rights defender. Of course, she is one of many who have been murdered over the last year simply for defending the basic principles of the rule of law and human rights that many of us take for granted in the United Kingdom.
It was a privilege to hear about it at first hand before taking part in this thoughtful and engaging debate. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions, and I will try to respond to their points in the order in which they were raised.
As the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), and a number of colleagues mentioned, this year’s theme for International Human Rights Day is “our everyday essentials.” That is exactly right. Human rights are not just abstract ideas; they shape our daily lives, protect our freedoms and help our communities to thrive.
Standing up for human rights is not just the right thing to do; it is also in Britain's interests. When we defend human rights, we protect our future security, growth and prosperity. If we respect the rule of law, businesses can plan and invest. And if we protect people’s rights at work and in society, we can build a healthier and more skilled workforce.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). In the 10 years that I have served with him in this House, barely a week has gone by without his talking about freedom of religion or belief. On violations, about which he has talked so passionately in debates over the years, I reassure him that we are an active member of the Article 18 Alliance. We continue to raise these issues in our role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and, of course, the G7.
In addition, I warmly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), the UK Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, and his predecessors in that role. Regardless of party politics, all those envoys have done significantly good work in not just highlighting but challenging positions around religious persecution—whether of Christianity or of any faith. It is important that we acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend and all his predecessors. If we defend the right to life and freedom from torture, we keep our country safe. The Government stand firm in defending human rights, the rule of law and democracy. We do that because it is right and it is good for Britain.
Let me now turn to the current situation, which is of huge concern and was mentioned by all Members across the conversation today. Freedom House reports that global freedom has declined for the 19th year in a row. As mentioned by a number of hon. Members, 60 countries saw a deterioration in political rights and civil liberties last year, and conflicts are spreading instability and undermining democracy.
We are seeing record levels of humanitarian crises and displacement. Every news report seems to bring fresh horrors: Palestinians attacked in olive groves in the west bank; journalists in Georgia imprisoned for speaking out; children killed by Russian missiles in Ukraine—I will come back to the Russian abduction issue shortly; Gazan families suffering while aid is blocked at the border; and crimes in Sudan so appalling that they are literally visible from space. It is unimaginable. Doing nothing is not an option. We must act, and as a UK Government we are. Earlier today at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office event, I reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to human rights. We are backing words with action, highlighting concerns on the international stage while providing financial and practical support to partners around the world.
The shadow Minister and a number of other Members have mentioned Sudan. In this context, that issue includes an update from the conference held in the earlier part of the year. I hope that most Members will be aware that the Foreign Secretary led efforts to call the Human Rights Council into a special session to condemn atrocities in Sudan and push for better humanitarian access. We have supported a fact-finding mission to investigate violations in El Fasher and are providing £125 million in lifesaving aid this year, reaching over 650,000 people, and including the £5 million for El Fasher announced by the Foreign Secretary just last month.
We will continue to work with partners to keep the spotlight on Sudan. There was a specific question from the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), who has since left, but I want to be as explicitly clear as I can about the issue of arms sales: we take very seriously allegations that UK-made military equipment may have been transferred to Sudan in breach of the UK arms embargo. To be clear, there are no current export licences for that equipment and there is no evidence of UK weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan. I hope that that will reassure colleagues.
I turn to the middle east. On 27 November, we joined France, Germany and Italy in condemning settler violence in the west bank. Meanwhile, UK funded tents are providing urgent shelter for 12,000 civilians in Gaza this winter. We have also pledged to match £3 million of public donations to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s middle east appeal. We continue to do all we can to ensure that aid is delivered to Gaza. I agree with the shadow Minister that it is incredibly important that the body of the last hostage is returned and that we all work as much as we can on the very basic principle that we should have a long and sustained peace in the region and work towards a two-state solution.
In Ukraine, we are backing efforts to hold people responsible for war crimes. We have supported the special tribunal for Ukraine, helped set up the atrocity crimes advisory group, and worked with others to refer cases to the International Criminal Court. We have funded training for hundreds of Ukrainian judges, prosecutors and investigators so that victims can have their voices heard.
The shadow Minister asked specifically about the abhorrent deportation of children. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has spoken recently about that and directly challenging what the Russian Government have done. We continually raise it with allies and play a significant and full part in the international efforts to reunite those children with their families. I am sure we can all agree that there can be no greater victim of conflict than children. There is also the additional horror to their abduction: their re-education, so that they forget their families. We need to make sure that that is dealt with and that those children are returned as quickly as possible.
We also continue using our position at the United Nations to encourage states to uphold their international human rights obligations. The UK has led efforts at the UN Human Rights Council on renewing mandates on countries such as Syria, Sudan and South Sudan. Those mandates matter: they keep international attention focused and help drive accountability. We are also leading negotiations on a new international convention on crimes against humanity. The treaty will reflect progress on international law, including on sexual and gender-based violence. I am very pleased that the UK was re-elected to the UN Human Rights Council in October, and we will use our membership to defend civic space, uphold the rule of law and champion equal rights.
Today, we are marking not just International Human Rights Day, but the conclusion of 16 days of activism to end gender-based violence. Over the past two weeks, our actions have included the Foreign Secretary launching a major new global coalition, bringing together pioneering women from across the world to tackle violence against women and girls. Officials have also met activists and organisations working to end violence in Sudan and elsewhere, to understand what more can be done to protect them and amplify their calls for justice.
On the shadow Minister’s concerns around online platforms, which I share, we also announced new support to tackle non-consensual intimate image abuse, expanding a UK-hosted online system to help victims remove and block online images. Our special envoy for women and girls, Baroness Harman, continues to champion the issue worldwide, co-ordinating international efforts and sharing best practice.
Sanctions are an important tool that we are using to hold rights abusers to account. In May, we sanctioned individuals and organisations supporting violence against Palestinians in the west bank. In October, alongside the US, we sanctioned the Prince Group, a scam-centre operator responsible for widespread abuses. These measures are targeted and co-ordinated with international partners to maximise their impact. We will keep up the pressure and continue to send a strong signal to the world that we will not stand by.
We are also working closely with partners on the ground to protect human rights and the rule of law. That work is backed by £50 million in funding this year, and includes support for organisations working to prevent torture, to end the death penalty and to ensure that the Holocaust is never forgotten. Our rule of law expertise programme sends UK experts to more than 50 countries. We have helped train police chiefs in east Africa to use interview techniques that respect people’s rights. That means people are treated fairly and the evidence gathered can be used in court. In Malawi, we supported the legal process to abolish the death penalty, taking the number of people on death row from 33 to zero. Those are real, practical results delivered in partnership with local authorities and organisations.
I recognise concerns about reductions in the UK’s official development assistance budget and what that means for our work; I acknowledge the question from the hon. Member for North Herefordshire on the subject. We are responding by finding new, innovative ways to support change, working in greater partnership with local actors and tailoring our work for maximum impact. The development of new FCDO centres of expertise will support the delivery of human rights objectives in individual countries, providing practical help and advice to posts and partners—something that countries right across the world have called for. We will continue to report publicly on our work ensuring transparency and accountability. Our commitment is not just to fund and support projects, but to share what we learn and show the impact that we are making.
To conclude, this Government are working to protect and promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law internationally—not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is in our national interest. A world where human rights are respected is a more peaceful world, where Britain and our partners are more secure and prosperous. We remain committed to achieving that goal.
Markus Campbell-Savours
I thank all colleagues who participated in the debate, including the persistent hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who raised the important issue of freedom of religion and belief, and the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), the Government’s special envoy for FORB, who spoke passionately about the international agreements that underpin our work on freedom of religion and belief.
I thank my friend the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who talked about the importance of the international human rights framework, the ongoing work to improve the framework and our important partners across the globe who work within the human rights network. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) shared some shocking stories, outlining cases of the mistreatment of environmental and indigenous human-rights defenders. Those stories should never be forgotten when we are talking about these important issues.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) spoke passionately about Parliamentarians for Peace, which sets out what our responsibilities should be as parliamentarians and how much additional work we must do. I also mention the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), who sadly was not able to contribute due to a Division during the debate. I know she would have been a staunch defender of the European convention on human rights, and I am pretty sure that is something her constituents would want to know.
I thank our Opposition spokespeople for reminding me of how many values we share on this issue, and I thank the Minister for reaffirming our responsibilities on this important matter and for taking head-on some of the important points raised during the debate. I kindly ask that the officers of the APPG on human rights meet the Minister in the new year to discuss those issues in more detail, including the resourcing of the Government’s international human rights work.
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
Thank you very much. For the record, the Minister was nodding.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered International Human Rights Day 2025.