Naushabah Khan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Sept 2026 · Conflict in Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the conflict in Sudan. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am pleased to have secured this debate, because it comes at a critical moment. The war in Sudan is now entering its fourth year. It has been labelled the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, yet for some reason it still barely registers in political discourse. Last week, a humanitarian convoy delivering lifesaving aid to Kadugli, where communities are at risk of famine, was attacked. A UN report has found that sexual violence is widespread and is being used as a weapon of war in Sudan, and that at least 13 victims have died, mostly after brutal gang rapes, with the youngest victim only nine years old. For millions of Sudanese people, the war is a daily struggle for survival. I suspect that many people in this country could not explain why a paramilitary force operating in Sudan stands accused of genocide. The gap between the scale of what is happening and the attention that it receives is part of the reason why it has been allowed to go on for so long. Just now, I was listening to the Foreign Secretary’s statement on the banning of Israeli goods that come from illegal settlements. The main Chamber was packed, and rightly so, but I would argue that the crisis in Sudan requires the same attention. The United Nations puts the number of people in Sudan who need humanitarian assistance this year at 33.7 million, which is more than in any other country on earth. There are 90 million people displaced inside Sudan, and more than 4 million have left it entirely, which is equivalent to the population of Greater Manchester. More areas are in or at risk of famine than anywhere else in the world. However, the UN’s own response plan for Sudan is funded at only 40% of what is needed this year. That shortfall already has a body count: hospitals in Darfur have closed for want of money to keep them running, cutting off tens of thousands of displaced people from anything resembling care. During the summer recess, I took part in a parliamentary delegation to Egypt, where I saw at first hand the impact of Sudan’s conflict on the region. My visit brought it home to me that this is a regional crisis—one that cannot be contained within Sudan’s borders.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  For over half a century, successive Governments of every political persuasion have affirmed to this House that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are unlawful. This is not a matter of personal interpretation, but a consistent and well-established legal consensus—consensus that is shared by the Foreign Office, codified in resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and, since July 2024, articulated with exceptional clarity by the International Court of Justice. Yet the stain on our moral fabric is that despite recognition of that, those same settlement goods are sold in British shops, and just last month, settler properties were marketed at a fair in London. When settlement expansion threatens to extinguish the very two-state solution that this Government are committed to, we must ask ourselves what purpose is served by delaying the upholding of moral and legal obligations that some of our European allies have already begun to uphold. Put simply, when Spain has banned all settlement trade, why cannot we? Across the House, there is consensus among Members on our position that this expansion is illegal under international law, yet through our continued delay in banning trade with these settlements, we risk in practice, if not in principle, giving legitimacy to Israel’s claim to sovereignty over occupied territory. If we are not prepared to match our rhetoric with action, our condemnation of settlement expansion amounts to lip service. In January, many of us took to these Benches to stress the importance of the rules-based order when the President of the United States threatened to take Greenland. We have time and again championed that same order in condemning Putin and rightly standing with Ukraine. We risk losing credibility for having made those correct calls the moment we permit commerce with what we, and everyone around us, deem an illegal enterprise.