International Human Rights Day 2025

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[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—]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Sudan: Protection of Civilians

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman raises important issues. Given his previous career and having worked with him in the past, I know of his sincerity on these matters. Ultimately, the parties involved are responsible for the conflict. If the allegations turn out to be true, we are clear that anybody responsible must be held accountable and we will not rest until that is done, both through our role at the United Nations and in relation to supporting accountability for any atrocities that have been committed.

We of course engage on a very close basis. It is not just about statements; it is about direct contact by our special representative Richard Crowder and the team in Addis Ababa with the parties and other members of the Quad. It is also about our role in galvanising international attention on the issue. I agree that for a long time the conflict has not received the attention that it should have received, as I have always made clear. We are having a direct impact through the aid and support that we provide, particularly in relation to the horrific impact on women and girls.

The hon. Gentleman asked about arms exports. I can assure him that we have one of the tightest and most restrictive arms export control regimes in the world. We constantly keep these matters under review. I assure him that I am in regular contact with officials on these matters, and we will take any allegations that are made very seriously.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

I would like to give the Minister the opportunity to be as robust as possible on the issue of arms exports. Do the Government consider the reports that UK military equipment exported to the UAE has been found on the battlefield to be credible? Has the UAE been challenged on that? Are the relevant export licences under review and, if needed, will we cancel them?

[Stephen Doughty]

I assure my hon. Friend that we take these issues very seriously. We take allegations that any UK-made equipment may have been transferred to Sudan in breach of the UK arms embargo very seriously. That reflects the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. The UK has one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the world. We constantly assess our licences for the risk of diversion and we regularly prevent exports that might be diverted to an undesirable end user or end use. We are aware of reports of a small number of UK-made items having been found in Sudan, but there is no evidence in the recent reporting of UK weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan. I will keep these matters under close review.

Middle East

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am afraid I cannot agree with that statement. I do not recognise those numbers.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

As I understand it, Hamas want Egypt, Qatar and the United States empowered as legal guarantors not only for a 60-day truce, but up to the signatory date of any final agreement with Israel. Can America not be prevailed upon to act as a guarantor beyond the final settlement? Hamas could be forced to reconsider their objectives under pressure from a population desperately looking for long-term security.

[Mr Lammy]

We are working particularly with Arab partners on this issue. Hamas have to exit—they have to step away from the governance of Gaza. My hon. Friend is right: we cannot have a pause for 60 days; we need an enduring, permanent ceasefire.

Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy

Markus Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this debate and for his work on this important issue. I would like to share two personal reflections that shape the way I view religious freedom and its place in our foreign policy.

The first reflection is on my lifelong faith. Between my mother’s deep Christian belief and spiritualism and my Church of England education, it seems I never stood much chance of avoiding belief altogether. Truth be told, I have never wanted to. I do not attend church nearly as often as I should, a failing I feel guilty about often, but I know without hesitation that when I need comfort or clarity, my faith—God, Jesus—is always there to support me.

The second reflection is on my heritage. I am half-Icelandic on my mother’s side and was raised with an acute awareness of my Viking roots. Iceland is a small nation of under 400,000 people. Some families, mine included, can trace their lineage back for more than a millennium. One notable ancestor is Thorgeir of Lightwater, a pagan chieftain and lawspeaker who in the year 1000 was tasked with an impossibly difficult decision: which religion Iceland would adopt. He spent a day and a night under a fur blanket in silent reflection—something that I have found myself tempted to do after reading social media commentary—and when his deliberation ended he declared that Iceland would adopt Christianity. Remarkably, he also decreed that individuals could continue to worship privately however they chose. Although that fell short of what today we would call full religious liberty, it was extraordinarily liberal for its time, and it avoided a bloody civil war between pagan and Christian factions.

Thorgeir’s story offers a sobering lesson: that belief is ultimately personal, that law cannot mandate conviction, and that practical compromise can safeguard peace. These are precisely the kinds of lesson that our foreign policy ought to embrace. Religious freedom is advanced when our diplomats, Ministers and civil servants understand the profound role that religion, religious practices and faith communities play in the societies we engage with abroad. In a UK political landscape that is largely secular, we must take care not to overlook the power of religion to drive development, mediate conflict and shape political identity.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the UK’s credibility on promoting religious freedom abroad is significantly undermined by the deep cuts to official development assistance, which have reduced our ability to fund vital human rights and civil society work in fragile states where freedom of religion or belief is most at risk?

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

I do agree, and that is a difficult one for me as a Labour Member. All I can say is that I will hold my Government’s feet to the fire on ensuring that we return to levels of overseas development assistance, which I recognise is an important contribution that we make internationally.

More than 80% of the world’s population affiliates with a religion. It is not, as some might cynically suggest, outdated or incompatible with democracy; it is a source of meaning, resilience and moral guidance to billions and, when understood and respected, a powerful partner in foreign policy. Faith-based organisations such as Christian Aid, World Vision, Muslim Aid and Tearfund play indispensable roles in delivering services, particularly to vulnerable communities. Those organisations are motivated by faith and supported by global communities who believe in their mission. Faith leaders have also played critical roles in human rights advocacy: from the South African Council of Churches opposing apartheid to Catholic resistance against dictatorship in Latin America and eastern Europe, their moral leadership has often been decisive in confronting injustice.

While we advocate for religious freedom, we must also confront the painful realities of religious persecution across the world. Minorities are facing forced conversion, violence, economic marginalisation and, in extreme cases, genocide. We cannot afford to ignore that. Let us name the suffering: the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, Bahaʼi in Iran, Shia Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Ahmadis and Hazara in Pakistan, Muslims in India, Yazidis in Syria, Christians in China, faith groups across North Korea, the Palestinians. These are not isolated incidents; they are affronts to our shared humanity.

If the UK is serious about advancing freedom of religious belief, we must integrate religious literacy into our diplomatic toolbox. We must build partnerships that respect faith identities, amplify marginalised voices and place human dignity at the core of our development, humanitarian and peacebuilding strategies. Let us reaffirm our role as global advocates for religious freedom, not just in principle, but in policy and practice. I add that I shall, of course, inform Hansard how to spell “Thorgeir”.