Conflicts: Impact on Older People

Clive Betts Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the humanitarian impact of conflicts on older people.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts; thank you for chairing this debate for us. I have been asking for a debate on this subject for some time. The subject is close to my heart, and not merely as a matter of policy—it is a matter of conscience, human dignity and our shared responsibility for the most vulnerable in our world. I thank hon. Members for attending. It is always a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He is always very jovial and friendly and tries to give the answers that we hope for.

I want to start by referring to a constituent named Margaret. She is 83 years old and lives in the Ards peninsula, where I live in my constituency of Strangford. She still keeps a photograph on her mantelpiece of the street where she grew up, which was not in the Ards peninsula. It was in Belfast on a street that no longer exists because it was destroyed—a casualty of the troubles that we had in Northern Ireland. Margaret speaks about the cold, the fear, and the long, painful shadow of conflict. She speaks from experience because it is her story. As an 83-year-old, she can remember it very well.

Across Northern Ireland are thousands upon thousands of older people who carry with them a lived memory of trauma. My family lives with the trauma of the death of my cousin Kenneth; my aunt, uncle and family were never the same. Across Northern Ireland, many thousands of families are affected by the troubles. As the title of the debate states, this is about the impact of conflicts on older people. I will refer to conflicts across the world, but the Northern Ireland one is the one that we can draw experience from and illustrate.

That experience, alongside my role in addressing health policy for the Democratic Unionist Party, means I understand viscerally what conflict does to older people—maybe because I am older now myself. I am more conscious of those who are just ahead of me, which makes me very aware of their vulnerability. I think of my mother who is 94—95 next Tuesday, if God spares her. Again, I think of older people and what they have lived through.

A wound does not simply wound the body, although it does that profoundly and permanently. It fractures community and destroys the very networks of care and support on which older people depend. It strips away the intrinsic dignity that every human being deserves, regardless of age, faith and nationality. My own community of the veterans of the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Prison Service and their families fully understand the lasting impact of trauma.

Apologies—I should have thanked the Backbench Business Committee at the beginning for allowing this debate.

The global picture is incredibly worrying. The scale of the crisis is mammoth. The United Nations estimates that approximately 200 million people aged 60 and over are living in fragile or conflict-affected settings. Let us take a few moments to let that number sink in: 200 million older people are living in fear, without adequate healthcare and shelter, and too often without any recognition that their needs are specific, urgent and distinct from those of younger people in the same crisis zone.

I wanted this debate because I have felt for some time that we look at the wars and see the young people, the deaths and the lack of education and healthcare. But in the middle of that are people of an older generation with incredible problems.

We see that with devastating clarity in Ukraine. Whenever I read the stories about Ukraine, they move me significantly. Who is left in the villages that are destroyed? Who is left among the ruins? Usually it is the older people, living in the basements. I want to focus on them for a few moments. I have stood consistently with the Ukrainian people in their hour of need, as has the House, the Minister and every hon. Member. Ukraine has the highest proportion of older people affected by conflict anywhere in the world; one in four Ukrainians is aged over 60.

In eastern and southern Ukraine, near the frontline, the situation is even more acute: one in three people who need assistance is over 60 years of age. The families fled, of course, to get away from the violence, the attacks and the Russian aggression. Only 5.4% of the Ukrainian refugees who arrived in Europe were over 65 because elderly people have been left behind, either due to their choosing to remain in their homes because it is the only place they have, usually with their pets—their cats or dogs—or because of severe health conditions that make fleeing conflict zones more difficult, even though the Ukrainians always try to give such people the choice to leave.

The situation has left older people facing acute challenges. Shockingly, around 50% of documented civilian deaths in Ukraine have been of people older than 60 years of age. They have faced severe disruptions to their support systems as family members, friends or carers have left. Some 90% of older people in Ukraine are unable to pay for even their basic medical needs to be met. They are probably in the conflict zones and often their medications, or the medical help that they need, cannot get to them.

Some 43% of older people in Ukraine have at least one disability. I know, from my position as health spokesperson for my party, that when someone gets to a certain age, they do not just have one thing wrong with them but half a dozen things. Complex needs are incredibly common among many elderly people. That makes evacuations and displacement even more challenging. There are barriers of mobility, digital exclusion and bureaucratic complexity that become insurmountable for an 80-year-old person who has lost just about everything they ever had, including their family.

I speak as one who has spent considerable time examining the collapse of health systems under the pressure of conflict. I want to underline this point with some force: older people have healthcare needs that are complex, chronic and ongoing. They need orthopaedic care. Many old people will struggle to get about at all; being in a warzone, under attack, makes that even more difficult. They also need cardiac monitoring and management of long-term conditions, such as diabetes—I am a recipient of management for that—and respiratory disease, hypertension and dementia. Those are not luxuries; they are the basic requirements of survival.

When a conflict destroys a hospital, a medical centre or a GP surgery; when it displaces a medical team; or when it cuts off a supply chain of medicines, it is the older people who suffer first and most. Long-term conditions are worsened by food insecurity, income insecurity, and the pressures of displacement and living in conflict situations. There are no shops and only the smallest means of cooking—it may be only a wee Calor gas thing, or even only a wood fire. The waiting lists that I have seen grow to crisis point here in Northern Ireland even in peacetime are as nothing compared with what older people face when the infrastructure of healthcare is obliterated by war.

Let us look at some of the harrowing theatres of war across the world. In Lebanon, older people face compounding risks from the escalation of hostilities, rising displacement, economic collapse and pressure on a weakened health system. A 2025 HelpAge assessment of 670 older women and men across five regions of Lebanon found that they were frequently excluded from assistance and recovery planning because they are at an age, they are probably still in the danger zones and little or no effort is made to help them. Some 61% received no humanitarian aid after the conflict and 39% reported being completely left out of the response, even during active hostilities. Only 12% of those who received aid said that it met their needs. Many have been unwilling or unable to leave their homes despite evacuation orders, while those who have fled found shelters that were poorly equipped for mobility, care and dignity, all three of which are so important.

Lebanon illustrates a wider failure. Aid might be provided, but if it is not designed around older people’s access needs, including their outreach, transport support, continuity of medication, assistive devices, home-based care and mental health support, it will not reach those most at risk. Who is at the back of the queue? It is the elderly.

Sudan is the second place that I will focus on. Today in business questions, Sudan was asked about; there was also a question about South Sudan in the questions about NATO, which the Secretary of State for Defence replied to earlier. I secured a Westminster Hall debate on Sudan—four weeks ago today, I think—in which I highlighted the issues in the country. What is happening there is absolutely tragic.

Since fighting erupted in April 2023, Sudan has seen repeated waves of displacement. Over 20 million people need health assistance and around 1 million of them are older people. Civilians face worsening conflict in the Kordofan region and risk escalating violence, confinement and starvation. UN figures provide an evidential base, showing that older men and women each make up about 4% of the population living in displacement camps, while around 3% live in refugee camps in neighbouring countries.

Older people remain one of the least supported groups in Sudan. Human rights monitors report that they are often left out of aid programmes, especially in remote areas. It is a massive task to get aid to remote areas; I understand that. But some consideration must be given to it. At the end of my speech, I will set out some ideas, which I hope the Minister will give me some encouragement about.

Due to limited mobility, many older people struggle to flee explosions or attacks. I am 71. I cannot run a marathon any more; I could probably walk it, but I could not run it. Older people who are on mobility aids cannot walk or run at any speed whatever, so they cannot get away from the destruction coming their way. Older people also face high rates of depression and post-traumatic stress. As we get older—maybe you and I both recognise this particular trait, Mr Betts—things may worry us more than they did when we were younger. I say that in jest, but the fact is that older people sometimes dwell on things longer than they should.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member should not take my views for granted in this sort of debate—he can speak for himself, I am sure.

[Jim Shannon]

I speak for myself, but I think you are not too far off my years, Mr Betts, although I know that I am older than you.

In Sudan, the health sector has been destroyed and medicines are in short supply. Even those with manageable health conditions are at grave risk. In parts of Darfur, dozens of older people are among those who have died of hunger in recent months, after armed groups blocked food deliveries. Who cannot get to the aid centres or food centres, because of their disabilities or their particular needs? Older people.

Why is that allowed to happen? It is because older people are invisible in the data. We often come back to data when it comes to debates—especially health debates, but perhaps debates on anything—because data collection and analysis fail to capture the realities of older people’s lives, with data collection often stopping before people are 60. If someone is over 60, their time in this world, according to those who collect data, is limited.

Where older people’s data is included in data collection, they are often lumped together as a single group—those over 60—but that obscures diversity and hinders effective policy making. Evidence shows that age inclusion specialists can change humanitarian assistance by improving assessments, data collection, training and programme design. To give just one example, the data collection tools used by HelpAge Ethiopia showed that there were six times more older people in one region of Tigray than had been previously thought. The data had not been there before so the number of older people had been unknown.

In Venezuela, age inclusion specialists supported humanitarian actors through adjusted food basket guidance to better meet nutritional needs. They use the data for the betterment of services. Unfortunately, there has been a double earthquake in Venezuela and many people are missing—the country is dealing with some incredible problems.

A 2025 systematic review found that the barriers to age-inclusive healthcare include inaccessible health services, shortage of medication and equipment, limited geriatric expertise, age discrimination, low mobility and dependence on others—more often than not, elderly people do depend on others. Funding reform is desperately needed. A 2025 analysis by HelpAge found that older people are rarely named in humanitarian funding databases. How can we deliver enough aid, medication, food and support to elderly people if we do not know how many there are? In funding databases, only 6.5% of descriptions and 0.1% of project titles mention older people.

I must raise the question—you would expect me to, Mr Betts, because I always do—of freedom of religion or belief. It is intrinsic to this debate in ways that are not always acknowledged. In many conflict zones, such as in Myanmar, Nigeria, Syria and Ethiopia, older people are targeted not merely because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, but because they are the custodians of their communities’ faith and culture. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and I share this concern, and I look forward to her contribution.

As custodians, older people hold the memory of worship, tradition and identity. They are the heartbeat of the congregation and the lifeblood of the community, and they are targeted because of that. They are driven from their homes because of their faith and denied the right to practice a faith that has sustained them across a lifetime. That is not simply a humanitarian failure; it is a moral outrage. Does the Minister agree that the protection of older people in conflict zones must explicitly include the protection of their right to freedom of religion or belief? I know the Minister’s answer to that, but perhaps we could have it on the record in Hansard.

I do not want to be churlish about the progress that has been made in international humanitarian law. There are frameworks and conventions, as well as the “Sphere Handbook” and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee’s work on inclusion, but let me be direct in a respectful way. The gap between the frameworks that exist on paper and the reality experienced by an 80-year-old woman sheltering in a basement in Kharkiv or a 75-year-old pastor driven from his church in Kaduna state in Nigeria is vast and unconscionable.

I have a number of questions for the Minister—seven, to be precise. We need to make humanitarian aid age-inclusive by default. Will the Minister commit to requiring UK-funded programmes to explicitly and systemically identify and reach older people, including those living alone, those with disabilities and chronic illness, and those unable to travel to distribution points?

To protect older people’s health, care and wellbeing, will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office prioritise continuity of medication, accessible health services, assistive devices, safe evacuation, accessible shelters, home-based care, if possible, and mental health support in active conflicts? Will the Government support universal social pensions, inclusive cash assistance and shock-responsive systems that enable older people to meet their own priorities with dignity? That will ensure age-inclusive access to cash and social protection.

Will the Department include older women in protection and its responses? Pre-existing patterns of discrimination are exacerbated during conflict, and extreme levels of violence against women and girls are a recurring theme. Older women are particularly at risk due to their age, gender, disability, caring responsibilities, widowhood or financial dependence. The UK international strategic framework on women and girls fails to consider how older women are affected, but there must be a focus on older women in particular. Will the Government ensure that its implementation includes explicit reference to older women’s humanitarian protection and safeguarding, and programmes to tackle gender-based violence through a life course approach? Russian army personnel have carried out horrendous sexual attacks on girls as young as eight and women as old as 80. We need to protect women of all ages.

We must count older people properly. Will the Minister require age, sex and disability to be included in disaggregated data, including specific age cohorts over 60? The age of 60 is where it seems to stop. If someone is over 60, we do not know about them for the purposes of all humanitarian assistance that the UK Government provide or support.

We must recognise older people as rights holders. Will the UK support the creation of a UN convention on the rights of older persons to recognise the agency and contributions of older people and to facilitate their participation in humanitarian planning, peace building and monitoring, and local decision making?

Last, there must be engagement with devolved Administrations. Will the Minister engage directly with the relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where we have hard-won knowledge of what conflict does to older people across generations, so that the lived experience of communities like mine can inform and enrich our international humanitarian policy?

I opened my speech with Margaret, so I will close it with Margaret. She once told me something that I cannot forget—that the worst thing about conflict is not the noise of it but the silence that comes after, when the world moves on and forgets that you are still carrying all that pain, memory and trauma. The older people of Ukraine, Sudan, Lebanon, the Sahel and every conflict zone across the world are still carrying that. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—these great four nations together as one—has both the capacity and the moral duty to ensure that they are not forgotten.

I commend this debate to the House. I thank Members for turning up, and I look forward to their contributions, particularly those of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), and the Minister. I look forward to engagement with the Minister and to ensuring that older people in conflict are not forgotten about. There are ways of doing it better; let us start now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, as it is so important to make a catalogue of war crimes. Whether they are committed against the elderly, or they consist of any other form of violence, including sexual violence, it is crucial that we keep good records so that we can hold perpetrators to account when the opportunity arises.

We know that if older people do not get the right nutrition, it has a massive impact on their ability to function. They can have greater episodes of confusion, making life much more challenging; they can become frailer; and they can rapidly lose their mobility, meaning that they have more complex needs. Good distribution of humanitarian aid is vital for the vulnerable, and we must always ensure that we factor in access to targeted support. It is not only about ensuring that people have the ability to reach that food; it must also be prepared for them in the right way.

We have been talking about some of the challenges that we have seen in Sudan as of late. It is a horrendous and complex war, so I am glad that it was discussed at the NATO summit recently and remains at the forefront of our Government’s mind. It is very much a forgotten war in so many respects. Evidence has also shown that the elderly in Sudan have been in the direct line of violence. It is important that we do not forget that either.

Older people—not least women—play a crucial role in the home and in the community, which often ripples out far beyond. Often, they are the ones who build the bridges, build the civil society, create the pathways to peace and organise communities at their most challenged. It is often the older women who can use their wisdom to bring co-ordination and build a way to the future. Indeed, I have been inspired by many older women leaders who have led the charge out of conflict, into a more resilient future.

However, we must also recognise that there are significant challenges. First, what are the Government doing to provide better protections for older people and their rights? We in the all-party parliamentary group undertook an inquiry into the human rights of older people, which looked at the frameworks and mechanisms that we can deploy to enhance and protect those rights, and to ensure that people can uphold them.

The work of the UN convention on the rights of older people has been inspiring, and it very much follows the lines along which other rights have been established, including the rights of the child or disabled people, to ensure that the protected characteristic of older people is upheld. Of course, it falls on the Foreign Office to advance that work and ensure that the UK plays a full role. We must bring our experience into that space so that older people’s identity can be seen, and so that their needs, in particular, can be supported. I ask the minister: what exactly are we doing to lead that work? Will the UK adopt the UN convention, once it has been established, to ensure that women, men and older people across the piece have their value recognised and their rights upheld?

Having a rights-based framework will move the agenda; it will enable us to focus on that protected characteristic—for example, age-inclusive specialists can help to reprioritise the humanitarian response, particularly in health or care. We must also ensure that we have good data to accompany that work, so that we know exactly how to focus our humanitarian response. Of course, when it comes to healthcare insurance, we can then ensure that pharmaceuticals and equipment are available in conflict areas to meet the needs of the demographic that we are debating today. When only 0.1% of humanitarian funding databases mention older people, we know we have a problem.

Can the Minister assure me that the Foreign Office will write older people into all its work, and will spread that good practice to agencies and other nations? Will the Government ensure that their humanitarian response is always age-inclusive, with an understanding of the risks that older people face when social infrastructure is destroyed by conflict? Will they also ensure that distribution is targeted to reach elderly people who have both chronic and acute health needs, wherever that focus is required?

Will the Government promote opportunities for social protections, such as social security and pensions, among older people in conflict zones to ensure that they can access the resources that they need? Of course, it is important in many countries, as it is in this one, that people can use more traditional ways to access those services. Will the Government ensure that they crunch the numbers for conflict areas and use the data to design humanitarian responses, recognising the prevalence of older people and the focus that they need?

Finally, I again make the point that the pivotal game changer for the issue is to have a UN convention on the rights of older people. That is about giving agency to older people in conflict zones, to better facilitate their participation in humanitarian planning, peace building, monitoring and decision taking. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and to contributions from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). I trust that we can rebuild our humanitarian response with good data, programmes and rights to support older people in conflict zones.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

We now move to the Front-Bench spokespeople. They are entitled to speak for at least 10 minutes each, but given that we are not particularly time-constrained, I will leave it with them to make a judgment on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Elmore]

To reassure my hon. Friend, I frequently meet other Ministers in the UN space in New York, and also in Geneva at the Human Rights Council, where the issues are discussed, and I think there is a willingness for the process to succeed. That work is very much part of the conversation and we are there in the room for much of it. I give her that reassurance.

As the global population ages and as conflicts and humanitarian crises continue around the world, the number of older people affected is likely to increase. That is why the UK is working with humanitarian partners to ensure that older people are not overlooked. At the heart of the debate is a simple principle: no person should become invisible because of their age, and no society should overlook the dignity, rights and contributions of those who have spent a lifetime contributing to their communities. The United Kingdom will continue to champion the protection, inclusion and participation of older people in humanitarian action around the world.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I call Jim Shannon, who has a couple of minutes to wind up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The shadow Foreign Secretary has made an immensely important point. I spoke to Secretary of State Rubio on Friday about the final stages of the discussions that were taking place before the memorandum of understanding was agreed. It is just the start of many further phases of work, negotiations and discussions, including discussions on nuclear power—we are clear about the fact that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon, and we stand ready to support those detailed and technical talks—and on the importance of reopening the strait of Hormuz. We have engaged in discussions not just with the US but with France, with which we have been building the maritime mission, and also with partners in the Gulf, so we can ensure that freedom of navigation is restored as swiftly as possible.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

3. What steps she plans to take in response to increases in settler violence in the west bank.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

5. What diplomatic steps her Department is taking in response to settler activity in the west bank.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

The settlements in the west bank are a fundamental barrier to peace, and a flagrant breach of international law. We condemn the rising and incredibly disturbing settler violence that we have seen over the past year. Last week I announced a new wave of sanctions to target the networks that are supporting this violence, which is the fourth package of sanctions against extremist Israeli settlers under this Government.

[Mr Betts]

Let me add a few words about the murder of Jo Cox. I was a friend and colleague of Jo’s, and I still remember the numbness and shock that I felt on hearing the news. Quite simply, no Member of this House should fear for their life because they speak out on behalf of their constituents.

The west bank is illegally occupied by Israel. The settlements are illegal and have been expanded through extreme violence by settlers, supported by the Israel Defence Forces. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware that, in May, the Dutch Government decided to ban trade in goods from settlements. They did so because they wanted to put pressure on the Israeli Government. The Dutch Foreign Minister made it very clear that the Dutch Government acknowledged that enforcement would be difficult and that they carefully weigh up these matters, but they decided in the end that doing anything was better than doing nothing. May I suggest that might be an appropriate course of action for our Government? We ought to be seen on the right side of this, and finding reasons why we cannot act is not right. We ought to be acting on this matter.

[Yvette Cooper]

Let me respond to my hon. Friend’s important point. We are clear that action is needed, and we are acting. This Government have done more on this issue in the last two years than any Government have done for many decades, because we are so concerned about settlement expansion and settler violence. We have not only had the recent sanctions against settler violence but sanctioned two Israeli Cabinet Ministers, because we take this issue so seriously. However, I think my hon. Friend and I agree on the principle that the settlements are legal. No one should be profiting from them, and we do not want businesses to be trading with them or operating within illegal settlements. A number of countries have explored legal bans but have also had challenges with them, and we are looking at what they have done.

Myanmar: Religious Minority Persecution

Clive Betts Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Four Back Benchers want to speak, and I will have the chance to call all of them. We have 40 minutes before the Front-Bench speeches, so that is fairly easy to work out: there are 10 minutes each, if you want to take them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts, for this important debate on religious minority persecution in Myanmar. As I have done so often over the years, I sincerely thank and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the driving force behind the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, for securing this debate and ensuring that people who have been persecuted for professing their beliefs or—just as importantly—those exercising their human rights not to believe or practise a faith, wherever they are in the world, are not forgotten about. With the world on a seemingly endless cycle, stumbling from crisis to disaster and back again, it would be all too easy to forget or choose to ignore issues such as the persecution of religious minorities, but it is vital that we do not do so or allow others to forget or choose to ignore such a fundamental human rights issue.

No one would wish us to forget or ignore this issue more than the military regime in Myanmar, where for decades a deliberate policy of religious and ethnic cleansing has been pursued as they seek to Burmanise the country. Burmanisation is the belief that true Myanmar citizens are both Burman and, of course, Buddhist. That is why the citizenship law was introduced in 1982 to strip Rohingya Muslims of their citizenship, rendering many of them effectively stateless and making them foreigners in their own land. That hideous, racist, sectarian policy excluded minorities from the political process and limited the social and economic development of ethnic minority communities by curtailing their cultural and religious freedoms.

The attempt to erase the identity of anyone who is not both Burman and Buddhist has resulted in the most appalling oppression of religious minority communities. Notably, as we have heard, Rohingya Muslims and Christians have been the primary victims of this ethno-religious Burmese nationalism. As we just heard, this year the charity Open Doors declared that Myanmar has risen up its world watch list rankings, and is now deemed the 13th most dangerous place in the world in which to be a Christian. Since 2021, Open Doors has recorded a steep rise in murders, destruction of places of worship and forced displacement, and has now put Myanmar in the extreme category for religious persecution.

State-sponsored religious persecution—as we have heard from every speaker in this debate—has caused Rohingya Muslims to flee, predominantly over the border to refugee camps in Bangladesh, where they are having to endure some of the worst living conditions on the planet, because they are fleeing what the United Nations has described as an “ongoing genocide” at the hands of the Myanmar military. So fearful are they of returning that appalling squalor and overcrowded camps are deemed preferable to the fate that would await them should they return home. Displacement, murder, repression and widespread endemic gender-based sexual violence are every bit as real a threat there today as they were in 2017, when over 1 million Rohingya Muslims fled to Bangladesh. It is worth remembering that in 2019, the United Nations described gender-based sexual violence as the hallmark of the Burmese military’s operations in Myanmar.

The Rohingya are stuck in what has been described as a hell on earth. For the benefit of Members who were not here the last time we debated Myanmar and the situation in Cox’s Bazar and Bangladesh, I will repeat what the journalist and documentary filmmaker Simon Reeve said after he visited one of those camps. He said it was

“like nothing I have seen anywhere on Planet Earth. This speaks of a Biblical exodus of an entire people terrorised into fleeing.”

Yet for those people, living in that unimaginable horror is deemed preferable and safer than returning home.

The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) is right that the situation for Rohingya Muslims living in the camps is only getting worse. Minister, that is in no small part due to the shameful decision by this Government to ape the previous Government and slash UK overseas aid, leaving Bangladesh—already one of the poorest countries in the world—to shoulder a massively disproportionate share of the costs of looking after more than 1 million refugees. When helpless, homeless refugees are dumped on impoverished countries, it leads to the crisis in Bangladesh that was alluded to earlier. We have a moral responsibility to do something about that.

As much as the Rohingya may wish to return home in a safe and dignified manner, such a return is not possible while the military in Myanmar is pursuing its reign of terror. The stark truth is that the Rohingya will be able to return home only when a Government committed to human rights, religious freedom and the rule of law are established. That prospect is unfortunately a long way off, because Myanmar, as we have heard so often, is in the grip of a man-made humanitarian crisis. The situation for the country’s religious minorities who have remained continues to worsen and the regime ramps up its persecution of those communities by attacking places of worship, forcibly conscripting minorities into its military, and continuing its genocide of the Rohingya Muslims.

As we also heard earlier, there are other armed players in this conflict who are also perpetrating abuses that disproportionately affect religious minorities—notably, the Rohingya Muslims and Christians. It is a dire situation. I desperately urge the Government to reassess the short-term, counterproductive and frankly inhumane decision to cut overseas aid; every single penny taken out of that aid pot has real-life, real-world consequences for men, women and children.

Although the return of UK aid would undoubtedly help considerably, so too would allowing refugees in Bangladesh the right to work and thereby to support themselves and their families. Of course I can understand why the Bangladesh Government would be reluctant to make legislative change that would, in their eyes, encourage 1 million or so refugees to stay within Bangladesh’s borders. But the reality is that these people cannot return home until it is safe for them to do so, and that is not happening any time soon.

Last month, I visited Thailand and Malaysia with the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief to meet many of those refugee communities who have been fleeing persecution—chiefly the Ahmadiyyas, Vietnamese Christians, Uyghurs, Chinese Christians and Iranian Christians, but also many more. Like Bangladesh, Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 refugee convention. Legally, in Thailand, there is no such thing as a refugee, despite hundreds of thousands of them living there.

The largest group of refugees in Thailand are from Myanmar, and they have lived in the camps along Thailand’s northern border for decades. With no legal right to work they obviously make a living in the black market, but in recent months the Thai Government have recognised the reality that such people are unable to return home and could well be an economic asset, and so have loosened the rules to allow them to work legally in Thailand. Perhaps, at least, the Government of Bangladesh might look at that—and indeed, why would the UK Government not look at it as well? What is happening in Thailand could happen in Bangladesh, and here. Refugees can be that economic asset. Allowing them to work will allow them to contribute, better themselves and benefit us all.

I again thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this debate. I hope the Government can see that, although the persecution of these communities happens so far from our shores, we have a moral and a humanitarian obligation to help—because we absolutely, certainly do.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

We move on to the Front-Bench speakers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.

Like other Members, I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate and on his long-standing and tireless commitment to defending freedom of religion and belief around the world. This debate is the latest example of those efforts. Once again, he has brought before the House an issue of grave moral urgency and deep international concern, which too often escapes the sustained attention of hon. Members across this House. For that, he deserves our sincere thanks.

In my capacity as a shadow foreign affairs Minister, I have stood in this very place on a number of occasions to raise the vital importance of defending freedom of religion and belief. Sadly, it is abundantly clear that the assault on the right to believe, to worship or simply to think freely is not receding. I regret to say that in many parts of the world it is intensifying, and Myanmar is the most tragic and alarming example of that. It is, sadly, a depressing way to start 2026: to hear that such tragic circumstances in a country continue in the second quarter of this century.

However, I find it reassuring that today we have heard from MPs from about six different political groups who all had the common theme of wanting to see the tragedy in Myanmar end. I thank all Members who have helped to play a part in that process over many years, some of whom have spoken today.

The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) spoke about the importance of upholding the rights of religious minorities and about the need for international action in Myanmar. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) hit on a very important point about the motivation behind all this, so there are still questions to be answered. Why is there such severe repression against religious minorities in that country? The hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), who served as a Minister until recently and who worked on this issue as a shadow Minister, spoke about the fragile situation on the border with Bangladesh and the importance of remembering that issue as part of the overall tragedy taking place in Myanmar.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for highlighting that the issue is not about one religion; it is about all religions that are persecuted. Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians are all being persecuted, and he particularly highlighted the plight of the Rohingya. I was not aware that the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) had been so involved in the Burma Campaign over the years. I commend him for that. He also spoke about the appalling humanitarian crisis and the tragic failure of the global community to highlight it more seriously. We look at so many other issues going on in the world, but we rarely talk about that. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), made a similar point.

Finally, the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) spoke about erasing identity and culture—exactly what is happening in Myanmar today—and Burmese nationalism. I think there is unity among all Members this afternoon, but there is a lot more to be said on this. Religious persecution is at the very centre of the wider conflict taking place in Myanmar. The military junta has deliberately targeted religious minorities—whether they are Muslims, Christians or others, as hon. Members this afternoon have mentioned—simply because of their faith, identity and ethnicity, which are so deeply intertwined in that country. The result is a campaign of terror that has displaced millions of innocent people and destroyed so many places of worship.

Independent human rights organisations such as Fortify Rights have documented deliberate aerial attacks on civilian infrastructure, including schools, churches and hospitals, in the run-up to the sham elections, blatantly indicating how systematic and widespread the military junta’s violence is. The latest report shows multiple airstrikes targeting civilian areas, many of which may constitute war crimes under international law.

Muslim communities, particularly the Rohingya, continue to suffer what many have rightly described as crimes against humanity. Hundreds of thousands remain in refugee camps in Bangladesh, a nation that has its own international issues to overcome, while those still inside Myanmar endure what Human Rights Watch has described as apartheid-like conditions, arbitrary detention and systematic deprivation of their most basic human rights.

Christians, too, often from ethnic minority communities and most starkly in Chin state, have been brutally targeted. Churches have been bombed, clergy have been killed and congregations have been forced to flee into jungles or makeshift displacement camps. Nor has Myanmar’s religious and cultural patrimony been spared, with historic cathedrals and churches damaged or destroyed in a deliberate attempt to erase identity as well as faith. That amounts to a sustained pattern of persecution carried out by the Tatmadaw armed forces with impunity.

As a country, and particularly in this place, we cannot look at Myanmar without recognising our own historical connections to that country. During the period of British administration, Burma was, as it remains today, home to a remarkable tapestry of peoples, languages and faiths. In its latter years as a Crown colony, there was at least a recognition, imperfect though it was, that diverse communities could co-exist under the protection of shared institutions and the rule of law. That pluralism was and is very much still being violently dismantled by the current regime. The very sense of cultural multiplicity that once defined Burma is now treated by the military junta as a threat to be eradicated. That should matter to us in Britain, given our role in establishing what is now Myanmar but, perhaps more importantly, because Britain’s standing in the world rests on our willingness to uphold the values that helped to hold that country together, with the borders that it still has today, in the first place.

I acknowledge that the United Kingdom, under Governments of both colours, has taken a strong stance on Myanmar. Successive statements at the United Nations have rightly condemned the violence and reaffirmed support for freedom of religion or belief. However, we all know that in the second quarter of the 21st century, eloquent statements in international forums are not enough when entire communities are being erased before our eyes. The International Court of Justice case involving the Rohingya continues at a glacial pace while atrocities persist on the ground, so I say this to the Minister: what further support are the UK Government providing to the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar to ensure that evidence is preserved and that perpetrators are identified and, we hope, brought to justice?

Beyond judicial mechanisms, what discussions has the United Kingdom had with counterparts in the region, particularly countries such as China and India, to ensure that those responsible, particularly within Myanmar’s military leadership, face real political and diplomatic pressure today and not at some indeterminate point in the future? Action is required immediately. Despite the UK’s imposition of sanctions, including on aviation fuel suppliers, airstrikes against religious sites continue. Does the Minister believe that the current sanctions regime is sufficient, or should we go further? What concrete steps are being taken to close the loopholes—particularly on jet fuel, arms transfers and financial flows—that continue to enable these atrocious attacks?

The UK Government rightly state that freedom of religion or belief is a core human rights priority, but how is that reflected specifically in our Myanmar policy? Is there a dedicated strategy to support persecuted religious minorities both in Myanmar and among refugee populations in neighbouring countries? We know that aid is being deliberately blocked from reaching displaced religious minorities, particularly in ethnic and Christian-majority areas, so what pressure are the UK Government exerting, bilaterally and through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches those for whom it is intended, without interference or manipulation from the junta?

Will the UK Government commit to raising once again at the UN Security Council the crisis facing religious minorities in Myanmar? Will the Minister work with international partners to build a stronger coalition in defence of freedom of religion or belief across south and south-east Asia more broadly? We have seen the United States take a strong stand in defence of persecuted Christians in countries such as Nigeria, and the US Congress’s work on freedom of religion or belief in Myanmar. Although the findings are grim, they have been instructive, so what discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in Washington? Is she pressing for deeper American engagement on this issue?

The United Kingdom has long been a world leader on freedom of religion or belief. When dealing with religious regions that have modern political foundations tracing back in part to this very building, I believe that we have a particular responsibility to show leadership—if not for the sake of those suffering today, to ensure that Britain is seen not as an irrelevant observer in global affairs, but as a nation that still stands up for justice, freedom and the rule of law, as our forebears have always done.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I ask the Minister to leave at least two minutes at the end of the debate for the mover to wind up.

Gaza and Hamas

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We track events in Gaza incredibly carefully. I do not intend to give the House a running commentary on each and every individual incident that takes place. The situation remains volatile and messy. I hope not to disappoint hon. Members if I avoid giving very specific answers on very specific incidents. Structures are now being put in place, including the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre, which plays a role in seeking to verify the facts on the ground where we can. That work obviously takes some time. The UK is making a contribution to it, but I do not wish to get ahead of that process from the Dispatch Box.

What I will say is that we have been absolutely clear on the threat that Hamas poses to Palestinians, Israelis and the wider world. That is why it is sanctioned as a terrorist organisation here. We are taking a range of measures with our partners to work through the very complicated but necessary steps, whether that is about transitional governance in Gaza, the security arrangements that need to follow, the international security force, or a whole range of other questions. I assure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we are deep in those discussions. We have been having them over the last few days, and we will have them in the region, too. This is an incredibly complex piece of work, and we remain very focused on it.

Just quickly on aid, I would like to inform the House that there appears to have been quite a significant uprating of the aid going in, particularly through Kerem Shalom, which is welcome, but the House will know of the centrality of the other crossings, particularly Rafah and the Allenby bridge. They are not yet fully open. Aid cannot therefore flow in the volumes that we would wish to see. We continue to work with all our partners to try to see them reopen.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement from my hon. Friend. It is fairly clear that the Israeli Government agreed to the peace deal only because they felt they had to, not because they necessarily wanted to. After all this time, we still have not got aid flowing into Gaza in the way we would all want to see. What further action can the Government take to put pressure on the Israeli Government to ensure that all the aid that is needed actually gets in, and gets in quickly?

[Mr Falconer]

That is a vital question from my hon. Friend, who follows these things closely. As I said in my last answer, to get to the volumes that we need, we will need both Rafah and the Allenby bridge to be reopened. It is welcome that there appears to be an increase of aid through Kerem Shalom—both UN aid and private trucks. It is vital that the Palestinian private sector, particularly in Gaza, can get goods in, restart the market and enable people to go about their normal lives. We will, as he would expect, continue to work with all our partners until we see the reopening of those crossings.

Qatar: Israeli Strike

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

Sea was also tried, particularly during the late period of President Biden, but was not found to be an effective mechanism for getting aid in. Where we can get aid in—even in small amounts—we will do so, but I cannot pretend from this Dispatch Box that any methods other than the land routes and UN support can reach the scale that is required to meet the need.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I am pleased to see the Minister back at the Dispatch Box, although I am not sure whether he is equally pleased to come back to the Chamber once again to answer questions about the illegal actions of the Israeli Government. We have a situation in which one of our allies has unlawfully attacked another of our allies. Given that we are rightly standing with the Qataris, is it not time we recognised that because of their actions in Doha and their continuous starvation and murder of innocent civilians in Gaza, this right-wing Israeli Government and this extreme right-wing Israeli Prime Minister are no longer allies of ours?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about my reappointment. I recognise the force of what he has said about Israeli politics; it is not appropriate for one Foreign Minister to comment on the internal politics of another country, but from the sanctions I announced from this Dispatch Box in June, the House can see the strength of this Government’s feeling about—for example—the rhetoric of Mr Smotrich and that of Mr Ben-Gvir. It has been deeply disheartening to see that rhetoric repeated over the course of the summer, but where we can, we demonstrate in the strongest possible way the strength of our feeling on these questions.

Middle East

Clive Betts Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I set out my statement very clearly at the UN. The Prime Minister set out his statement at No. 10. When I finished my statement, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority came to me and gave me an embrace. Yet the hon. Gentleman thinks that he knows more and that the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority got it wrong. Of course we are working with our partners; of course we are trying to change the situation on the ground—I make absolutely no apologies for that. We will make our assessments for UNGA. The hon. Gentleman’s judgment on this occasion is wrong.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the commitment to recognising the Palestinian state. Some of us have fought for that for many years. I also welcome the rest of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, in so far as it goes. He is right to condemn what the Israelis are doing in Gaza with their policy of starvation, and he is right to recognise the Israeli attempts to split the west bank in a way that will prevent a Palestinian state from being created, but in his heart of hearts he knows that the Israelis will carry on regardless of his condemnation. Will he now give serious thought to the “what if”? What further action are the Government prepared to take to hold the Israelis to account and to get them to recognise the force of international arguments against them on both those points?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend brings considerable experience to the Chamber and to these issues. Of course, as he would expect, I and the FCDO plan for all scenarios, but we remain optimistic and hopeful. That is our solemn duty on behalf of the hostages still underground, and on behalf of those suffering in Gaza, particularly the children and women who are losing their lives and being injured in the way we have seen.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

Let me be clear from this Dispatch Box: we do not endorse such extremism. I will not speculate about sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but it is clear that should the situation not improve, targeted sanctions will be considered.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I appreciate that, as Minister of State, my hon. Friend is limited in what he can say from the Dispatch Box, but will he convey back to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister the extreme disquiet and unease across the House, particularly on the Labour Benches, about the position the Government are adopting? Will he ask the Prime Minister to come back next week to update the Government’s position, tell us that more sanctions will be considered and that the recognition of the Palestinian state is also now on the agenda and will be forwarded?

[Mr Falconer]

The whole Government, from the Prime Minister down, know the extent of concern. I am not sure that they necessarily watch all these appearances, but do not be under any illusion: the whole Government understand the strength of feeling about these issues in this House, in our constituencies and across the country.

Middle East Update

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I agree with the Minister’s comments and condemnation of Israel’s actions in Gaza. The problem is that I have agreed with him every time he has made these condemnations of Israel, and the whole House generally has joined him in that, but the reality is that Israel is taking absolutely no notice of the Government’s position. Its actions now in Gaza—the starving of the population and the threats of wholesale movement of that population away—are completely unacceptable. Will the Minister consider a rapid recognition of a Palestinian state, hopefully together with France and other allies, and will he seriously consider sanctions against Israel if it pursues the wholesale removal of Palestinians from their homes?

[Mr Falconer]

I know the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend and of so many Members on the Benches behind me and, indeed, across the House. It is obviously a source of great anguish to me and all in the Government that we continue, this far into our government, to not have the ceasefire in place that we have long called for. We are working with our allies to try to persuade Israel to change course. As he will know, I will not comment on sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but we have been as clear as we can on our position in relation to the many areas we have discussed in the House week after week, month after month where there has been a failure to see improvement, whether that is the protection of civilians or aid into Gaza. We will, of course, continue to discuss all other matters in relation to this fraught and tragic situation with our close partners, as he would expect.

Gaza: Israeli Military Operations

Clive Betts Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I set out our position on arms suspensions earlier in this urgent question.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Let me try to approach this in another way. It is obvious that Israel has been emboldened by the explicit and implicit support of the US Government for what it is doing—that has been a fundamental change. The US Government have ruled out a two-state solution, as I understand. What has the Minister been doing, or what can he do, to work with our colleagues in the European Union, and with the Arab states, to develop a clear plan for a two-state solution, and a clear timeframe for all countries recognising a Palestinian state?

[Mr Falconer]

As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not seek to characterise the foreign policy of others; they can set out their policy themselves. On co-operation and co-ordination, we have been in extensive dialogue with those involved in the Arab initiative, and we have worked with Germany, France and Italy, and made joint statements on this and wider issues recently. I expect that in June we will join an important international conference about a two-state solution, where we will discuss that with our partners.

Northern Gaza

Clive Betts Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member mentions a fire engine that the FBU has generously donated to try to contribute to relief efforts in Palestine. That issue had been raised by my own colleagues in advance of his doing so. I am frustrated that I have not been able to secure that fire engine for use in Gaza, alongside the many other pieces of aid and vital equipment that so many in this House know is not going to the Palestinian people. I would not want the hon. Member to think that I ignored his entreaties in relation to the FBU donation, just as I would not want any Member who has asked me to try and secure aid access into Gaza, and where I have been unable to do so, to think that these issues are not raised regularly. I am a Labour politician and am particularly responsive to the requests of our trade union partners. I wish that I had been able to secure that fire engine into Palestine, just as I wish I had been able to secure the neonatal support we have discussed, the medical support that has been raised or the many other items of international aid which I have seen with my own eyes in al-Arish that have not crossed through the Rafah crossing or anywhere else into Gaza. These are frustrating issues. I will continue, as will the rest of the ministerial team, to press for more aid to go into Gaza. Insufficient aid is going in and we will continue to raise these issues.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I want to return to the issue of the recognition of an independent Palestinian state. As I understand it, the Government’s position is that Israel has no veto on the creation of a Palestinian state. The Minister just said in response to a previous question that recognition has to come through diplomatic efforts. Do those diplomatic efforts have to involve Israel? If so, and Israel refuses to co-operate in them, does that not effectively give Israel a veto over the creation of a Palestinian state?

[Mr Falconer]

We have to be straightforward about the situation in Israel and Palestine at the moment. There are Occupied Palestinian Territories that have illegal settlements and an IDF presence. To get to a viable two-state solution, we are going to need agreement on both sides. The two states would need to live side by side with arrangements in place to ensure that both were safe, secure and sovereign, so I cannot see a route to a two-state solution that does not involve serious negotiations with the Israeli Government in order to reach a lasting settlement. That is a statement of the diplomatically essential. That is not to say that the Israelis can veto whether or not the Palestinians are entitled to a state, but it is a fact of reality that both states would need to work side by side to ensure each other’s safety and security.