Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society
Rosena Allin-Khan Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
As bad as that situation is, it is in fact accentuated and worsened by the prevailing situation in Northern Ireland, where not only have we equality legislation, but, pursuant to article 2 of the protocol governing post-Brexit arrangements, there are applied additional so-called rights that have been used by activist judges to strike down already two pieces of legislation from this Parliament—the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Whether one agrees with the content or not, is it not quite appalling that within one part of the United Kingdom there are foreign jurisdictions imported through the protocol that give different so-called rights from elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Before I call Andrew Rosindell again, I remind Members that if they would like to make a significant contribution today, they should bob, and I will get them in for the debate. I call Andrew Rosindell.
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right that in this country, sadly, we have divided our own nation by treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the kingdom. That was a huge error by, I am afraid to say, the last Conservative Government, which agreed to the Northern Ireland protocol and then the Windsor framework. I am against both, and I look forward to a future Government repealing them so that we have one United Kingdom, where all people in these islands are treated equally and the same.
As set out clearly by Don’t Divide Us, the truth is that the Equality Act should really be called the inequality Act. Instead of treating every citizen as an individual equal before the law, the Equality Act elevates certain so-called protected characteristics and encourages people to see themselves not as fellow Britons, but as members of competing groups. Far from promoting individual merit, the Equality Act is simply state-sponsored identity politics.
What has been the result? Our English legal system has sadly been Americanised through the introduction of a corrosive culture of litigation in the workplace. Since 2017, race discrimination claims in employment tribunals have tripled, with more than 200,000 cases. Yet only 5% have been upheld, which tells us something very important: either Britain is riddled with invisible discrimination that even our judges cannot detect, which, given the richness of our legal traditions, I simply do not accept, or the law is unfit for purpose. In practice, it has turned the workplace into a battleground of claims and counterclaims. Despite the small number of successful claims, the statistics demonstrate the damage caused in places of work. Victim culture has not only been allowed to dominate the workplace, but been actively encouraged by the legislation.
To take one example, in the case of Williams v. Nottingham, the judge noted:
“the claimant thinks the existence of a ‘racial disparity’ is in…itself proof of racism”.
However, the damage goes much deeper. The Equality Act is not simply a tidying-up of previous anti-discrimination laws; as hinted earlier, it represents a wholesale shift away from our common-law tradition where everyone is equal before the law towards a continental EU-style system based on substantive equality, group rights and bureaucratic enforcement. It was inspired by EU directives, in direct contradiction of our legal heritage. It hands enormous power to quangos, activist lawyers and DEI consultants, while eroding the space for free thought, free speech and personal judgment.
Some right hon. and hon. Members suggest that repealing the Equality Act would mean enabling inequality, but that is simply wrong. Just as repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 would not abolish human rights, repealing the Equality Act would not abolish equality. Human rights and equality existed long before these Blairite statutes. In fact, equality as we would define it today finds its roots here in these islands of the United Kingdom.
The underlying ideology of diversity is not neutral, as many on the left of politics suggest. It treats diversity as an unqualified good and, by implication, majority identity—whether English, Scots, Christian or British—as a problem to be managed. That is why so many of our constituents feel that these laws are not written for them and certainly not in their interests. The majority who simply want to live by the law, pay their taxes and contribute to society feel increasingly alienated by a system that tells them they have privilege that must be checked, while others are encouraged to claim special treatment. That does not sound like equality to me.
The Equality Act has given rise to a sprawling industry, made up of an army of bureaucrats, consultants, trainers and lawyers, all feeding off the taxpayer. Repealing it, as I am advocating today, would mean considerable savings, as vast sums of public money are poured into funding this circus. Repealing the legislation would both restore common sense to our institutions and deliver real value for money to the taxpayer. Estimates suggest substantial savings, with annual reductions in compliance costs running into tens or probably thousands of millions—it is very hard to quantify, but it is a huge sum of money when we consider all the public institutions that spend money on promoting the DEI agenda, money that should be going to our frontline public services instead.
The NHS Confederation has indicated that DEI roles alone are costing the taxpayer nearly £40 million, and I am sure that is an underestimate of what is really being spent. That is just one sector; goodness only knows what the total bill is across the public sector, in local government, the police and educational institutions—and let us not forget the BBC. It is time to put the taxpayer first and end this costly charade.
The private sector and the corporate world have also been sucked into this dangerous ideology, spending vast sums of money in ticking every woke box while engaging in constant virtue signalling. None of this is cost-free to the public either: ultimately, it all must be paid for out of the pockets of their customers. Some will say, “But you had 14 years in government—why didn’t you repeal it?” to which I say that I, the Member of Parliament for Romford, have opposed the Equality Act from the very beginning. I never believed it would deliver what was promised, and I have consistently warned of the dangers of this ideological agenda. Sadly, too many in my party doubled down on it; some even wanted to extend it. I know that the shadow Minister here today, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), is not of that view, but sadly, over the last 14 years, many in my party sucked it all up, carried on with it and wanted to extend it. That was a grave mistake, and Britain is suffering as a result.
The Labour Government talk of introducing a new race equality Act—another bright idea from the same failed mindset. The Equality Act has caused so much harm; adding another layer of identity politics into the law will make matters even worse, and I urge the Government to rethink that idea.
Likewise, we increasingly hear calls to adopt a legal definition of Islamophobia. What kind of society do we want to live in? One where these proposed definitions conflate criticism of an ideology or a religion with hatred of people? Criticising Islam as a religion is not the same as hating people of the Muslim faith. Indeed, freedom of thought and freedom of speech require the ability to critique religious ideas, no matter what the religion may be. To criminalise such critique would be wholly inconsistent with the liberal, democratic principles that have evolved in this country over centuries.
It is more important than ever that we as Members of Parliament, in the mother of all Parliaments, do not cower from taking decisions that, at face value, may seem unpopular. Trust me: the residents of my constituency of Romford, and in every corner of the United Kingdom, would wholeheartedly endorse the reversal of these laws, as the problems we face lie at the heart of the legislation itself.
In my opinion, we should repeal the Equality Act root and branch, we should repeal the Human Rights Act, and the United Kingdom should withdraw from the European convention on human rights. Indeed, we should dismantle the Blairite constitutional reforms that have corroded our democracy and wedged our politics between a long-standing tradition of parliamentary sovereignty on the one hand, where power rests in this place—the Crown in Parliament—and an attempt at an American-style separation of powers on the other hand that has led to the outsourcing of Parliament’s ability to govern to so-called experts.
Those systems are mutually exclusive, and we must pick one. As a Conservative and Unionist, I see the intrinsic value of defending the constitutional traditions that have embedded themselves in these islands for 1,000 years and that have been exported successfully around the world, to the Commonwealth nations in particular. We must return to the great principle that has served this country well for centuries: equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender or background. That is the British way. That is our common law tradition. That is the true way to guarantee equality.
The Equality Act is not bringing our people together; rather, it is driving them apart. It is fuelling an imported woke culture, an unmeritocratic DEI bureaucracy and a corrosive culture of grievance. We must therefore challenge the equality law house of cards constructed over previous decades and topple it to the ground—or face the prospect of an ever more divided society. We should be proud to identify ourselves as British first and foremost and be truly glad to live in a society where all are treated equally under the ancient laws and customs that have made these cherished islands the great nation that it is and must continue to be.
Seema Malhotra
Let me make a couple of remarks in response to the right hon. Lady’s challenge. It is important that our legislation is used in a way that follows the letter and spirit of the law. I do not want to see debates like this become culture wars. We want to be led by the evidence.
The right hon. Lady raised the issue of white working-class males. We have seen in the data that there is an underperformance among that group, which is really important. It is unacceptable that any young person is either not given the opportunity to succeed or not supported. Over the next year, it is our priority to tackle head-on the gap facing white working-class pupils, which the right hon. Lady will know because she is an avid follower of what the Government are doing. It is important that we look at where there is underperformance statistically and whether there are systemic issues in relation to that. This autumn, our schools White Paper will set out an ambitious and practical plan for tackling generational challenges; that is important, and I am sure the right hon. Lady will want to contribute to the Government’s work in that respect.
I will come back to a couple of other points should time permit, including about positive action provisions, which relate to the right hon. Lady’s own Government’s guidance. The positive action provisions in the Act allow limited exceptions to the general position that one group should not be treated better or worse than another. Lawful positive action is always voluntary and must relate to one or more of three conditions: addressing a disadvantage associated with a protected characteristic; providing for a protected characteristic group’s specific needs; or tackling disproportionately low participation by a group. The previous guidance, published in 2023, makes it clear that that is very different from positive discrimination. The right hon. Lady knows that mandatory quotas to recruit or promote people from a particular group irrespective of merit would be unlawful.
I want to make some points about the progress we have seen under the Equality Act and equality legislation, from ending child labour through to votes for women and the Race Relations Act—Labour’s first equality legislation around 60 years ago. Social progress often means that what was once controversial becomes a new normal—a new baseline. Indeed, legislation can change culture, just as culture can change legislation. I am proud that we are in what I hope is a more equal society—one that is more tolerant and believes in respect for each other—compared with the environment that my parents found when they first came to Britain to work, to contribute and to be in business. My mum was a teacher. What they experienced was dramatically changed by the legislation that was brought in, and that gave me opportunities. I remember being spat at when I walked down the street in Feltham and other places, but we are now in an environment where everyone should be able to grow up proud of who they are and able to play their part equally in British society.
Our landmark legislation was a triumph for how the whole nation, including business and unions, came together. I am incredibly proud that we have seen progress, from the implementation of the minimum wage to scrapping section 28 and bringing in same-sex marriage. If we were to scrap all our equality legislation, we might want to answer the questions that would be raised by Members of Parliament who are in same-sex relationships and who have married their partners. I could draw on the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) and others. If we rolled back all our equality legislation, what would we be saying to them about how they have been able to come together, marry their loved ones and live their life in Britain, just as we should allow anybody to marry the person they love?
A handful of people in this House would like to take us backwards, to a time before our values were underscored in law and before fairness was put at the heart of our legal framework, but I believe it is important to be proud of the rights we are afforded by the Equality Act. I am a little unsure of the time I have remaining.
Seema Malhotra
I have a few additional remarks. Our Equality Act had a number of objectives: first, to bring together myriad pieces of primary and secondary legislation that had built up, so that we could have one clear, coherent framework that the British people could feel confident in; secondly, to modernise some of the language and concepts used, to make them clearer and more accessible, such as the fact that discrimination linked to breastfeeding is sex discrimination; and thirdly, to strengthen the law by, for example, introducing protection from discrimination by association across various protected characteristics. ACAS guidance gives as an example of the latter a parent being unfairly dismissed from work because of time taken off at short notice to care for their disabled child.
It is important to recognise the progress we have made and where we want to go further. Building on the success of gender pay gap reporting, we committed in our manifesto to introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for large employers, and to make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people. The hon. Member for Romford might be interested to know that we have been working on that with business, and that many large businesses already follow such practice. We had a consultation and call for evidence, which we are looking at before coming back to the House. Leaders of successful international businesses have told me that more transparency and awareness enables a shift to a more inclusive culture, raising awareness and improving transparency. It also improves staff morale and satisfaction, respect for others and their backgrounds, and understanding—all things that I believe the hon. Member would be keen to see for his constituents and for others across the country.
Let me address some of the other points made in the debate, starting with addressing head-on the point about the definition of Islamophobia and the ongoing working group. Members will have heard it said in Parliament before that, should the Government accept the recommendations of the working group, the definition used will be non-statutory. It will enable the Government and other relevant bodies to have a greater understanding of the unacceptable treatment and prejudice against Muslim communities.
We have seen a massive rise in hate crime against the Muslim and Jewish communities, which accounts for about 71% of hate crime in the past year. As the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) knows, the working group’s proposed definition must be compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of belief and expression, which includes the right to criticise, express dislike of or insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherence. We fundamentally believe in freedom of speech but we do not believe in hate. It is important to have a legal framework that supports people’s rights to have their own freedom of religion and belief, without fear of what could happen to them.
We see our work on equality and tackling barriers to opportunity as being at the heart of how we support positive and inclusive growth for our economy and communities. The strong equalities framework drafted by the previous Labour Administration, further enhanced by the commitments of this Government, is ultimately about fairness for all, and will see us boost productivity and household income, getting more money in people’s pockets and raising living standards for all as we deliver the next phase in our programme of government renewal.
Let me come back on the comment about rainbows on roads and pavements. I remember that during the pandemic rainbows were everywhere, for what they symbolise in so many ways, including a commitment to equality. Perhaps the issue of road repairs is less about rainbows drawn on pavements and roads and much more about the cuts made under the previous Government. My local authority saw a 60% cut in income in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government. That had a massive impact on how we were able to renew and maintain infrastructure in our community. The hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) should know that dealing with roads and potholes is a priority not just for central Government but for my local government in Hounslow.
In conclusion, I want to be clear that the Government are very proud of the Equality Act 2010 and remain committed to improving equality and fairness for all through our Employment Rights Bill and other legislation. I look forward to seeing that come forward in our legislative programme.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rosena Allin-Khan Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the House’s attention. I strongly condemn all violence directed against journalists, and call on the Israeli authorities to make every effort to ensure that media workers across the region can conduct their work freely and safely. Deliberate targeting of journalists is entirely unacceptable. International humanitarian law offers protection to civilian journalists during any armed conflicts, and those laws should be abided by. I call for all attacks to be investigated and for those responsible to be prosecuted.
Dr Allin-Khan
Last week’s Nasser hospital bombings murdered many innocent people, including five journalists, and the double-tap method used was particularly barbaric. Article 79 of the Geneva convention states that journalists are civilians during war, and article 8 of the Rome statute makes it clear that attacking civilians in a hospital is a war crime. I agreed with The Guardian’s editorial yesterday when it stated that
“Israel wants to stop the world from seeing what it’s doing”.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Nasser hospital bombings are a war crime, and what action will he be taking against Israel?
Mr Lammy
On 21 August the UK joined a Media Freedom Coalition statement calling on and urging Israel to allow immediate independent foreign media access and afford protection to journalists operating in Gaza. There must now be a full, independent investigation into what happened at the Nasser hospital, and my hon. Friend is right to call to mind the importance of abiding by international humanitarian law.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Rosena Allin-Khan Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
To be clear, the issue with aid getting into Gaza is not the availability of aid. The cuts we have announced have had no bearing on whether or not aid can get into Gaza—I know that because I have seen our aid with my very own eyes in warehouses in al-Arish. We must remain focused on the central issue, which is neither the availability of aid nor the availability of partners, such as the United Nations, that are prepared to go in and deliver it; it is that the Israeli Government have effectively put in place a blockade. That is the central issue that must be addressed.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Almost eight months ago, the UN commission of inquiry found that Israel has implemented a concerted effort to dismantle the healthcare system in Gaza, and that the killing and disappearance of healthcare workers amounts to the crime of extermination. UK doctors in Gaza describe it as a “slaughterhouse”. With the growing mountain of evidence detailing war crimes taking place, and our diplomatic efforts being totally ignored by the Israeli Government, it is time to sanction Benjamin Netanyahu and the other murderous figures who are responsible. Words are not enough, so today—here, now, in this Chamber—I would like the Minister to give us a concrete date for when we can expect this Government to impose sanctions.
Mr Falconer
I hear the frustration of the House. I am sure that other Members will also raise the deeply distressing reports that there have been in recent days, and indeed going even further back, in both the west bank and in Gaza. Let me be clear, as the Prime Minister was clear with France and Canada: if Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions in this place. [Hon. Members: “When?”] I will not say from the Dispatch Box today when that might be.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Rosena Allin-Khan Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I stand by the decisions we have taken to meet our obligations for security around the world and the decisions we have made in relation to the F-35s. I want to make it clear that our decision to suspend arms sales that could be used in Gaza is a serious one, and we are absolutely content that we are meeting all obligations that I set out back in September.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Yesterday, Israel admitted that it allowed only five aid trucks into Gaza for over 2 million people—that is more than Northern Ireland’s entire population. This weaponisation of food is morally reprehensible. We must impose an arms embargo and sanctions on the Israeli officials who are responsible for these heinous crimes: Benjamin Netanyahu, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. I welcome the joint Government statement with Canada and France. Given that time is running out with every moment we stand here talking about this issue, can the Secretary of State clarify the conditions and timeframe for the very firmest of action?
Mr Lammy
We have made these decisions today. My hon. Friend will recognise that there is an important conference convened by France and Saudi Arabia, where we will work jointly with those partners. I ask her to look carefully at the leaders’ statement and our absolute commitment to take further action if necessary in the coming days and weeks in terms of the course of action that the Netanyahu Government are set to take, of military expansion and the blockade of aid.
Gaza: UK Assessment
Rosena Allin-Khan Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Falconer
I of course welcome, as the Foreign Secretary did yesterday, the release of Edan Alexander. I know the whole House thinks of those hostages who remain in Hamas captivity. I have been in direct contact with the American officials involved in that release, and it is a very welcome development. We are focused on ensuring that there is no role for Hamas in a future for Gaza. We are working as part of the Arab reconstruction plan to try to achieve that.
The right hon. Lady asks an important question about the proportion of British aid unable to get into Gaza at the moment. For almost two months, the horrendous answer is 100%. Even before then, there were significant restrictions on the aid that we wish to get into Gaza. I saw for myself the items that were unable to cross from al-Arish into Rafah. The proportions will be very high, but I will see with my officials whether I can break it down in greater detail for her.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Slow and agonising breaths, scared, crying, emancipated bodies fighting for every heartbeat—it is death by a thousand cuts for the children and for the parents watching their babies deliberately being starved to death. Almost 1 million children are at risk of famine and death in Gaza. Those who have stood by and allowed this to happen should hang their heads in shame. I call on the Government to sanction Israeli officials until the blockade is lifted, because if we do not act now, this will be on us.
Mr Falconer
I know the strength of feeling behind my hon. Friend’s words. I am sure she is aware of the findings of the IPC report on Monday, which delineates in great detail the precise suffering being felt because of a lack of food and nutrition. We are horrified by those findings. The need for action could not be more urgent.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rosena Allin-Khan Excerpts(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is important that there is a cross-party position, and successive Ministers of both political parties have condemned expansion and condemned violence. We continue to work with partners across Europe and beyond on these issues. I do not say that it is easy. He will know that I announced sanctions back in October, and we continue to keep these issues under review, but the culture of impunity for those engaged in violence is intolerable. I remember just a few months ago sitting with Bedouins who had experienced that violence and were being subjected to that expansion—it is horrendous. That is why in both the UN and our dialogue with the Israeli Government we are clear that that harms the prospects of peace and security for Israel; it does not further its ambitions.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The scenes coming out of Palestine recently have been nothing short of shocking. Hundreds have been killed in settler violence in the west bank, the brutal torture of Palestinians in Israeli custody is commonplace and the collapse of the ceasefire means that the devastation and human suffering in Gaza has simply continued. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether his Department has received any evidence showing that international law has been violated? Will he share such evidence and his assessment openly?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. She will know that, in a sober and measured way, the Government had to make our own decision on the exports licensing regime, which was put in place by the last Government, and we assessed that there was a clear risk of a breach of international humanitarian law. Therefore, we have suspended arms that could be used in Gaza. That is a decision that Ministers have made from this Dispatch Box under different Governments.
Jammu and Kashmir: Human Rights
Rosena Allin-Khan Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Order. As so many Members wish to speak, I suggest that we stick to four-minute speeches where possible, please.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate. I pay tribute to the work that my constituents in Sheffield Central have done on this really important issue: they have campaigned for many years to raise awareness of the plight of Kashmiris.
Amnesty International has documented the repression of dissent in Jammu and Kashmir, particularly after the revocation of its special autonomous status in 2019. Quite recently, the case of Farkhunda Rehman, a British Kashmiri woman who was harassed and exploited, was not investigated appropriately. This is not an isolated case. Human Rights Watch has also reported on the ongoing repression, arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial killings and restrictions on freedom of speech and of assembly. Its findings emphasise the use of counter-terrorism laws to target journalists, activists and political leaders. Journalists in Kashmir face extreme levels of harassment by security forces, including interrogation, raids and threats.
For many years, people have relayed to me their constant concerns that the Indian authorities have routinely restricted and blocked internet in Kashmir and prohibited the rights of human rights defenders and impartial independent observers. We must work hard to make sure that all political parties put their candidates up for election and facilitate free and fair participation, regardless of their political beliefs, for the determination of the future of a free and fair Kashmir.
These are my questions to the Minister. Given the scale of human rights abuses, when will we move from condemnation to action? When will we recognise that this is not a bilateral issue? When will we hear the voice of Kashmiris and ensure that their voice is heard in the international arena?
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Tahir Ali
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall today.
In January 1948, India went to the United Nations to ask that the issue of Kashmir be noted. Subsequently, resolution 47 determined the outcome for a plebiscite. To this day—76 years on, and into the 77th year—that resolution has not been implemented. The people of Kashmir are now asking the international community: what has to happen to them before their voices are heard? When articles 370 and 35A were revoked back in August 2019 by the Modi-led BJP Government, there was a deafening silence from the international community. The United Nations failed to act.
Earlier this week, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, expressed concerns over human rights violations in India and particularly in illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir, but the response from the Indian high commissioner to the United Nations was that he should take
“a long and hard look in the mirror”.
That is nothing but a complete disregard for the United Nations.
India calls itself the largest democracy. That raises the question: if it is the largest democracy, why would it not let international observers into Kashmir, with unfettered access to observe what is happening on the ground? Why are extrajudicial killings happening on the international community’s watch? India is getting away with atrocities against women, rape, torture and even the pelleting of children who are making their way to school. What threat can they be? This is all very well documented.
It is a blatant two fingers up to the international community to shout the loudest and say, “We are the largest democracy. Nothing is happening in Kashmir. We will continue to do what we are doing. What has been happening for the last 76 years will continue, and we will take no notice.”
Kashmir is not a bilateral issue. It is not an issue between Pakistan and India. It is an issue for the Kashmiri people, who have a right to self-determination. It is for the international community to come together to make that happen. If it does not happen now, in the midst of the global turbulence that is happening in all regions, when is the time for the international community to come together? Peace is needed. Peace has to happen in the region. Two nuclear states cannot allow Kashmir to become the hanging fireball in the region that could explode or ignite at any time.
This is unfinished business from the UK Labour Government in 1947. We have a Labour Government now. Perhaps it is up to the UK’s Labour Government to take a leading role and make sure that that unfinished business is dealt with properly once and for all, without putting any more lives at risk and without risking any more atrocities, given the genocide that is taking place in India-occupied Kashmir. Why would a country not even allow its own politicians access to the region of conflict? Why will it not allow its own journalists access, if there is nothing to hide?
Back in 2020, a delegation from the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir went to Kashmir. All of us were denied a visa to the India-occupied region. The then chair managed to get to Delhi, but she was returned to Dubai because she was not allowed any further access. When we ended up on the Pakistan side, the then PTI Government allowed us unfettered access to any areas we wanted to visit, without any hindrance. We had to ask for it, but we got access. In fact, we changed the schedules to make sure that we saw parts of the Kashmir region that had perhaps not been seen by politicians before.
On one side, Pakistan allows international access; on the other side, India is hesitant. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to work out where the problem is. My plea to the UK Government is that unfinished business cannot remain unfinished. It has to be dealt with now. Will the Government take all steps to make sure that the right of self-determination is granted to the people of Kashmir?
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that because so many want to speak in this important debate, we need to stick to four-minute speeches and keep interventions to a minimum.
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: Travel Advice
Rosena Allin-Khan Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government advice on risks of carbon monoxide poisoning when travelling.
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship today, Dr Allin-Khan. I also extend my gratitude to all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken the time to participate in today’s debate. Their presence means so much to campaigners, to victims of carbon monoxide poisoning and their families, as well as to the charities and organisations that support them. I especially acknowledge my constituent, Cathy Foley, who first brought the issue of CO poisoning abroad to my attention during a surgery appointment in November last year. I will open the debate with Cathy’s story, which she shared with me.
Hudson Foley, Cathy’s son, was by all accounts a bright, enthusiastic and energetic young man. As for many people his age, physical health and fitness were a pursuit, a pastime and a pleasure, as was the lure of international travel. In May 2023, Hudson set off from his family home in Surrey for an organised backpacking adventure across South America, where he planned to learn Spanish, volunteer, meet new people and explore the region.
During his travels, Hudson stayed in home-stay accommodation, arranged by a well-known travel company specialising in youth travel. On the morning of Wednesday 30 October 2023, he had breakfast, made a phone call to the UK, and shared light-hearted conversations with his host’s family, before heading for his morning shower. Only minutes later, Hudson was found unresponsive in the bathroom. Despite the best efforts of his host family, Hudson could not be revived. He was just 24 years old when he died.
The official cause of death was acute pulmonary oedema, a condition where excess fluid fills the lungs. That diagnosis made no sense to Cathy. Hudson was a healthy, active young man who neither smoked nor drank. Determined to uncover the truth of his death, Cathy reached out to the British embassy in Quito to request a post-mortem report. The first difficulty she faced was that obtaining the report required a formal request from a solicitor.
After months of persistence, even flying to Ecuador herself, Cathy finally received the report, which included a toxicology analysis from a US-based specialist doctor, whom Cathy had had to find to undertake the work. The results showed no alcohol or drug presence, but one alarming detail stood out: the carbon monoxide levels in Hudson’s blood exceeded 50%. Had it not been for Cathy’s relentless determination, including travelling to Ecuador, consulting a carbon monoxide specialist, securing legal assistance and hiring a translator, Hudson’s death would have remained misdiagnosed and there would have been no inquest. In fact, Hudson’s case was just days from being filed away for good.
Thanks to Cathy’s tenacity, the true story behind Hudson’s death is being heard today. One of the greatest challenges that Cathy and campaign groups face in their advocacy for carbon monoxide awareness is the lack of accurate data on carbon monoxide-related deaths overseas. We know that fatalities have occurred over the past 25 years—
Northern Gaza
Rosena Allin-Khan Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
If words are to have meaning, clearly our policy is different from that of those on the Opposition Benches, as I think they would accept. I do not want to see this conflict continuing for another year. The Palestinians cannot wait. We are doing everything we can. We have been calling for an immediate ceasefire since we came into government. We will continue to take steps to try to advance that call.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I was left numb by the words a doctor wrote on a whiteboard in the Al-Awda hospital in Gaza before he was killed by an Israeli air strike, which said:
“Whoever stays until the end will tell the story. We did what we could. Please remember us.”
We need to know that we did all we could. I know the Minister and his Department are pulling every lever available, but please can we have an extra push to get the ceasefire deal over the line? We need to put an end to this horror.
Mr Falconer
I remember those words from the whiteboard, and we must and will spare no effort and will strain every sinew to try to do what we can to advance the ceasefire as quickly as possible. It is already far too late.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rosena Allin-Khan Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
“Massive” is probably the word I would use. His case is being raised in America and across the European Union, and we are raising it too. His trial has begun, and he is now well into his 70s, which is why I have made the case to the Chinese that he should be released. This is becoming cruel and unusual punishment, frankly.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The International Criminal Court has confirmed what we have all known for months, which is that the Israeli Government, under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu, have unleashed a concerted campaign of crimes against humanity on innocent Palestinian civilians. This is no longer a question of which side we are on, or of who is right or wrong. It is cold, hard legal fact, and we cannot allow it. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the Government are considering appropriate action against Netanyahu and Gallant to properly hold them to account?
