Sudan
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
That is exactly why I had meetings directly with the African Union, to make sure that the work to support civic society involves the work it is doing locally and also involves neighbouring countries directly. The hon. Member is completely right to say that if this simply becomes an ongoing stand-off between two military-led parties, we will not get a secure and sustainable peace for Sudan. The first stage has to be the humanitarian truce, but we have to have that civilian transition.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement today and commend her on her leadership, particularly in travelling out to Sudan to see at first hand the atrocities that are being committed. We all know that in conflict innocent civilians will always get caught up in crossfire, but the distinction in this case is that children are specifically being targeted—children being raped as a weapon of war and young boys being kidnapped and forced to bear arms. I am sure the whole House welcomes the additional support we are giving in the form of financial aid, but it is a drop in the ocean given the challenges faced in Sudan, so what more are we doing with our allies to ensure we can maximise the aid that gets into Sudan? Also, given that we are now in pole position as president of the United Nations Security Council, is there any prospect that we can get UN troops to protect the civilian population, and children in particular?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the hon. Member’s points about the horrendous way in which children are being targeted. Some of the most disturbing reports are of children and women who have managed to flee from one of the cities under siege. They are leaving—they are fleeing, they are running away—yet on those journeys, they are stopped and face rape, sexual violence and kidnapping. The most terrible crimes are being committed, so we are working on how we can strengthen support for children and use not just the work of the UN Security Council or that of the UN more widely, but any international forum we have, to raise the plight of children.
Armed Conflict: Children
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(3 days, 6 hours 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
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate.
There is no period of greater importance than childhood. Every child deserves dignity, protection and the support needed to give them the best possible start in life. Yet today, more than 500 million children are living in active conflict zones around the world. Every day, we are confronted with the human cost of war on children: the 20,000 Ukrainian children abducted and taken to Belarus and Russia, many of whom may never see their families again; the 10.8 million children in Yemen denied food, clean water, healthcare and education; and the millions of girls in Sudan facing displacement, starvation and the constant threat of abduction, exploitation and enslavement.
The scale of trauma being inflicted on children worldwide is both incomprehensible and intolerable. Ending this suffering requires two things from a Government such as ours—adequate humanitarian and development assistance to meet children’s immediate needs, and the political courage to prioritise human rights and the prevention of harm over political expediency. On both counts, unfortunately, this Government have failed, in my view. At a time when children’s suffering has never been more widespread, the Government chose to halve the overseas aid budget. That was not an unavoidable necessity, but a political choice, and one that has stripped millions of children of access to food, healthcare, education and protection. Now is not the time for retreat; it is a time for leadership. Instead, the Government have turned away from their responsibility to uphold the most basic human dignities.
However, this failure goes beyond aid. The Government have also failed to take the political action necessary to prevent and halt the conflicts that devastate children’s lives in the first place. Nowhere—nowhere—is that more evident than in Gaza. For over a year, this Labour Government stood by as Palestinian children were bombed, shot and starved, and as their schools, hospitals and homes were destroyed. Through their inaction, the Government have been complicit in the destruction of the conditions children need to live, learn and grow. They stood by as their lives were reduced to bare survival, or taken away altogether.
We cannot soften the reality of the physical, emotional and psychological trauma inflicted on these children. A recent study led by the University of Cambridge found that constant bombardment and starvation have left children in Gaza
“too weak to learn or play”,
and convinced that they will be “killed for being Gazans”. These children have lost not only their homes and health, but their hope and their faith that the international system will protect them.
Children in Gaza will have lost the equivalent of five years of education since 2020. Rebuilding education across Palestine is going to cost billions. As a result, children will depend on foreign aid for decades, not because this was inevitable, but because the Government failed to stand up for international law when it mattered most. We must be honest about our role in this devastation. The suffering did not occur in a vacuum, and our silence and inaction were not neutral. Lives were destroyed because it was politically convenient to look away.
Middle East and North Africa
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
We do remind the Iranian authorities of the right to protest. It is vital that that people are able to conduct that right with access to communications, which have come under pressure in Iran in recent days, and indeed without the threat of violence.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Deep down we all know that there is no real ceasefire. How can it be a ceasefire when more than 500 civilian Palestinians have been murdered, approximately 100 of them children? We all celebrated the new year with family and friends with fireworks, while Israel Defence Forces soldiers celebrated new year by firing unlimited bullets into Gaza blindly. The level of depravity is unspeakable. We now know that 37 reputable organisations are being prevented from providing humanitarian aid. Here is one suggestion. We know that nine countries, along with the UK, expressed their concern. What stops the Minister and this Government joining with those nine countries and making a visit to the International Criminal Court to raise this matter, so we get a ruling and then enforce it, if necessary with military?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the deliberations of the ICC already in relation to this conflict. The ICC is supported by the UK, but it operates independently and at a distance, rightly, from the Ministers of this country and any other country.
Venezuela
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
Trying to make an equivalence between the US and Russia is just totally ridiculous and deeply inappropriate. We have seen the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the kidnapping of Ukrainian children. In contrast, we have our relationship with the US, in which it is discussing security guarantees for Ukraine. I think that is hugely important.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Absent international rules-based order leads to chaos. We all know that within chaos there is order; sadly, that order is one in which the strongest survive and the most vulnerable and weak die. That is neither just nor morally right. How can we be champions of and advocates for the international rules-based order yet wholly equivocal when it comes to calling out this flagrant breach of international law?
Yvette Cooper
We have set out our continued commitment to international law and the importance of maintaining some of the underpinning rules-based alliances that are so important for sustaining the rules-based order. That is why we will continue to argue for international law and to maintain things such as the NATO alliance and the partnership, and it is why we will continue to raise these issues publicly and privately with our allies.
Sudan: Humanitarian Situation
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Elmore
The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point in relation to children, as have other Members. Conflict is unimaginable in any form, but the killing of children specifically and the use of children as weapons of war is an atrocity all of its own. We continue to work at the UN level, at both the Human Rights Council and the Security Council, to ensure that, as penholder, we bring about an end to the conflict as quickly as possible. Obviously, we will keep up that work, including on the specific impacts on children.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
As well as the atrocious mass murders, the humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan only worsens. It is vital that we commit ourselves not only to giving aid, but to delivering it in a way that reaches as many people as possible. Recently, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact highlighted how our Sudan-related aid is being undermined by understaffing, short-term and unpredictable funding allocations, over-complex compliance procedures and insufficient support for frontline responders. When can we expect the Government’s response to those findings? Can the Minister assure the House that the necessary changes will be made to ensure that humanitarian assistance gets through?
Chris Elmore
Let me give the hon. Gentleman one example. Over the past two years we have provided the World Food Programme with £55 million, which has been explicitly targeted at populations at risk of or experiencing famine, including in Sudan, and £2 million of additional funding for Cash Consortium Sudan’s El Fasher response, supporting over 100,000 people with lifesaving aid in north Darfur. We also work regionally, including around eastern Chad. We do ensure that the funding through the aid programmes reaches the people who are most in need.
Kashmir: Self-determination
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(1 month, 4 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
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Thank you, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for his passionate statement and for securing the debate.
We speak about a valley that has carried the weight of unfulfilled promises for generations. Kashmir is not a footnote in history; it is a living community whose rights were affirmed by the United Nations and yet remain suspended in political frost. According to UN resolutions, the people of Kashmir were promised the right to decide their own future through a plebiscite. That right has not expired with time; it still stands like an unopened door. As has been stated, we must be clear that Kashmir is not a bilateral quarrel, to be tucked quietly into the filing cabinets of the two states. It is an international issue rooted in international commitments.
Whether it wishes to or not, the United Kingdom sits inside the story. The partition that sculpted two nations also abandoned the Kashmiri people to a limbo not of their choosing. Our responsibility is not sentimental; it is legal, historical and moral. Economic partnerships must never become soft pillows under which we smother our legal obligations. Human rights abuses in Kashmir continue in the dark corners where accountability rarely reaches: sexual violence, disappearances, extrajudicial killings and detentions without trial or legal counsel.
Those are not allegations to be met with diplomatic murmurs; they demand consequences. The UK must move beyond symbolic gestures and consider targeted sanctions, just as we have invoked international law in response to atrocities elsewhere, including the mass killing of Palestinians. Justice cannot be selective. The human reality along the line of control rarely makes headlines. Families divided by an invisible frontier, guarded by soldiers, live as if they are stitched to opposite pages of the same book, unable to meet, to mourn, to celebrate. That is unnecessary cruelty disguised as security.
I call on the Minister to reflect on one issue on which the Government can deliver: the transformation of the line of control from a barrier into a bridge. Let designated crossings be open for humanitarian movement and for families tied by history, culture and ancestry. The United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan can support and safeguard the crossings. Compassion can be supervised; it does not need to be suppressed.
The promise of a plebiscite is not a relic; it is the cornerstone of Kashmir’s right to self-determination. The UK Government must recognise that this is no longer a bilateral matter, but a global obligation. When India, for example, threatens to undermine the Indus waters treaty through collective punishment, the UK should send a firm signal that the international community will not tolerate such tactics. We ask for action and not eloquence, for courage and not choreography, and above all, for the rights of the Kashmiri people to be finally honoured.
Imran Hussain
I thank hon. Members for their excellent contributions. The courage and conviction with which many have spoken will send one message to the British Kashmiri community. There are more than a million British Kashmiris—I am surprised the Minister failed to acknowledge that number. Listening to this debate will be not only more than a million British Kashmiris, but also all those who champion human rights. This issue is not isolated to Kashmiris around the world; it is an issue with international law and human rights at its heart.
Imran Hussain
I am not sure I am able to give way. Am I able to, Sir Roger?
Ayoub Khan
We have constantly heard that this is a bilateral issue. The existence of UN resolutions clearly suggests it is not a bilateral but an international issue. Does the hon. Member agree?
Imran Hussain
I absolutely agree. That has been the central theme throughout this debate, and it continues to be the most pressing matter. I will come back to that point, but I first want to pay tribute to the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. Those listening to the debate will at least know there continues to be hope, because there are Members of Parliament who have the moral conviction to stand on the right side and ensure voices of justice and of their constituents continue to be heard.
I am disappointed but also grateful to the Minister. He has given me the most time ever to sum up—10 whole minutes. But equally, that shows how little he said. That is not personal to the Minister, because he is following the Government line. As we heard from the Opposition as well, these lines are decades old. Frankly, just because lines are decades old does not make them right. We not only lack the moral courage required by the situation, but our silence continues to make us complicit.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The hindrances to the provision of humanitarian aid are not just to do with supplies and the trickle of access into Gaza, but the safety and security of the aid agencies operating in Gaza. We recently witnessed two individuals being gunned down in broad daylight by Israeli soldiers. Does the Secretary of State believe that we now need international, independent peace forces from the United Nations to assist in the humanitarian work?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member has raised a couple of issues. Making sure that aid workers can operate in Gaza is hugely important, and we continue to press for non-governmental organisations to be fully recognised, so that they can continue their important work. I think he was also referring to the shocking footage of a shooting on the west bank. There must be a thorough, swift and transparent investigation of it, because that footage was extremely disturbing.
Qatar: Israeli Strike
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(4 months, 4 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
As we discussed last week, the circumstances of the famine in Gaza are horrifying and it is absolutely obvious that the restrictions on aid into Gaza, for which the Israeli Government are responsible, are contributing very significantly indeed to those circumstances. The Israeli Government have raised methodological concerns with the IPC judgments. Those concerns arise from the fact that there is not free access into Gaza. We stand by the IPC and the judgments it has made. It is clear that the restrictions of the Israeli Government, on which I have been clear at the Dispatch Box innumerable times and have seen for myself at the border, are responsible for those circumstances.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We have had a number of ceasefires historically. Each one was violated by the Israeli Government. The recent attack in Qatar is a clear example that the Israeli Government are not interested in a ceasefire; they are interested in a genocide, taking over the whole of the Gaza strip and west bank—we see that in their reactions and in what they say in the public arena. None of the levers that we have spoken about in this House seems to have had any impact. It is like a toothless tiger: we say we are going to apply this pressure and that pressure, and nothing seems to be done. This blatant, unlawful attack on Qatar requires punishment. Does the Minister not think that the immediate, unconditional recognition of a state of Palestine is a form of punishment and would go further to a ceasefire than what we are talking about?
Mr Falconer
I set out in response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) the process by which we will make the determination on the recognition points that we set out in July. That point is very soon; the high-level week of the UN General Assembly is just weeks away. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity, I am sure, to question me and other members of the Government after the Prime Minister has made his determination.
I do not think it is right that we should think of recognition as a punishment. If that is indeed the determination that we make, it will be a reflection of our long-standing commitment to a two-state solution. It is unlikely in and of itself to ameliorate the horrifying famine and the many other sources of agony that flow to the Palestinian people at the moment. That does not mean that, if the Prime Minister makes that determination, it may not be the right thing to do, but the House should not think that it will necessarily bring any immediate improvement in the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(4 months, 4 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
Jas Athwal
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that this has to come to an end straight away. While I welcome the Government’s decision to recognise the state of Palestine and to condemn the Israeli Government’s dehumanisation of Palestinians, we must face up to the unfortunate truth that this is simply not enough, as it has not stopped the violence. Instead, every day the reports grow bleaker, the suffering is deeper and the need for intervention grows more urgent.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We have all witnessed what can only be described as genocide and ethnic cleansing, mass starvation, and the intentional murder of aid workers and people who want doctors and so forth. This Government’s approach, in saying that there is not a genocide, further emboldens Israel in what it is doing. Does the hon. Member agree that military intervention is an option that should not be off the table?
Jas Athwal
What I agree with is that we must never give up the diplomatic option, because that is the way that we will get across. We must avoid more bloodshed at any cost, and we must work harder for the diplomatic solution.
Mr Stringer, I will not abuse my position; having had two interventions, I will relinquish the floor for my colleagues to contribute.
Middle East
Ayoub Khan Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but as I have said, we are not supplying arms to Israel—that decision was made back in September. It is my obligation and very solemn undertaking to ensure that we are not complicit. The standard that this legislature set is a very low one and a clear risk, and is not as high as standards found in international courts. It is for that reason that we suspended sales that could be used in Gaza, notwithstanding some of the mendacity that we see online.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Despite all the protestations that we have heard from the Dispatch Box, by the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and others, it seems that Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu will stop at nothing. Like a dog that has tasted blood, Netanyahu can be stopped only by military intervention. To be absolutely clear, we are not working with the likes of Canada, Australia and France when it comes to the recognition of the state of Palestine, because we have adopted what is known as a contradictory conditional statement. Will the Foreign Secretary make it plain that the UK Labour Government’s position is that we will not recognise the state of Palestine so long as Benjamin Netanyahu fulfils certain conditions?
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.