Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I noted reports today of deep frustration in the US Administration in relation to what they are seeing. Certainly, President Trump has said that this war is just going on too long, and I think he said that again last week on his own visits to the middle east. I note the right hon. Gentleman’s tweets and that he has been raising these issues. Is he as concerned as I am about the position of his Front Bench?

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I agree that January provided a small window and glimmer of hope—hope for the innocent civilians who have continued to be bombed for many months; hope for the innocent hostages, who just want to be reunited with their families; hope that was withered away by the Netanyahu Government, who broke that ceasefire. The Foreign Secretary is right that the world is watching; it is also watching us in the UK Parliament. The UK is legally bound to prevent acts of genocide. Does he agree that there must be clear and tangible consequences for Israel if it continues to have blatant disregard for international law and to use food and aid as weapons of punishment?

[Mr Lammy]

It is because of those very same issues, and my concern that the denial of essential humanitarian assistance to a civilian population is unacceptable and risks breaching international humanitarian law, that I suspended arms back in September. I want us to get back to a ceasefire; I want us to get back to diplomacy. There cannot be a role for Hamas, but there can never be a role for using food as a tool of war.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

This House is now faced with a responsibility as profound as it is complex: to ensure that this Bill remains clear in its purpose, cautious in its application and compassionate in its impact. That purpose is simple, yet solemn: to grant adults of sound mind with a terminal diagnosis the legal right to seek assistance to end their lives in carefully regulated circumstances through a legal framework in which compassion and control co-exist. With that in mind, I rise to speak against new clauses 1, 2 and 9, which, while no doubt well intentioned, threaten to confuse, dilute or duplicate what is already a well-constructed piece of legislation.

I begin with new clauses 1 and 2. New clause 1 would prohibit healthcare professionals from raising the topic of assisted dying unless it is first broached by the patient. While that may be appealing superficially as a safeguard, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctor-patient relationship. We trust our clinicians every day to raise subjects of great complexity and moral weight.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Member agree that, unfortunately, some of our constituents up and down the country do not trust our clinicians? They have grave concerns about the way in which they are treated, because they feel that they do not have a level of equality within our NHS, which is sadly the case. That was explained and shown during covid.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. I fear there is some rhetoric that engenders a fear around the medical profession, which is misplaced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

I am bringing my remarks to a close.

If we believe in dignity, let us ensure it is a dignity that includes everyone; if we believe in autonomy, let us not deny it to those who may lose their voice tomorrow; and if we believe in compassion, let it be a compassion that recognises the lived reality of all terminal illnesses and does not consign those with MND to the status quo.

[Florence Eshalomi]

Mindful of time and of the need to allow other colleagues to speak, I have been carefully to ensure that my speech is short. I will therefore not be taking any interventions.

I voted against the Bill on Second Reading, on the grounds that there were inadequate safeguards against the coercion of minority communities. That was based on my belief that, if we are to legislate for something as serious as the end of someone’s life, then the bar that the legislation must reach in order for it to be deemed safe needs to be much higher than it is in other areas. In the time since, I have followed closely the scrutiny that the Bill has received at Committee and on Report. I had hoped that my concerns would be addressed, but I am sad to say that I am even more worried now than I was then.

Before getting to the new clauses and amendments that would provide important safeguards, I want to state again that I do not think the Bill is the appropriate mechanism for a national decision of this magnitude to be made, and ultimately, any decision on it should be led by the Government and the clear will of this House, not on promises made to people without an elected mandate.

I pay tribute to the work of tireless campaigners on a number of important issues in relation to the scrutiny of this Bill since Second Reading. That work resulted in many amendments and new clauses being tabled by Members from across the House to attempt to strengthen the protections for at-risk groups. As I alluded to, I sadly do not have enough time to speak to all of those that I support, but I am grateful for the efforts of the many who have led and spoken in this debate.

I will speak to amendment 16, which stands in my name. It would make it explicit in clause 28 that there would be no obligation on any care home or hospice that is regulated by the Care Quality Commission or the Care Inspectorate Wales to provide assisted dying on its premises. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) has tabled new clause 10 to replace clause 28 and thereby ensure that there is no obligation on anyone to provide assistance. While I welcome the expansion of protection that that provides to practitioners who do not wish to provide assistance, I do not believe that it is comprehensive.

Dr Jamilla Hussain, a palliative care consultant working predominantly with ethnic minority communities in Bradford, gave oral evidence to the Bill Committee. She said:

“I have gone into those communities and I have spoken to them about this Bill. What they say overwhelmingly to me is, ‘We’re scared. We’re really fearful that this is going to result in a disproportionate impact on our community. We have seen that through covid and we’re so scared.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 187, Q245.]

Heartbreakingly, she also said:

“Almost every week, one of the first things I have to reassure patients about is that I cannot legally do anything to shorten their life. This is front and centre of the fear for those patients and we see it all the time.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 190, Q247.]

This is not an academic or theoretical risk. Are we really prepared to sideline those unheard voices and risk embedding further inequalities in healthcare as we legislate?

We are all elected to this place to elevate the voices of those who feel that they are furthest away from power. If we are to achieve that, we must make decisions that honour their experiences, and legislate to protect them, but if hospices are unable to opt out of a collective policy of providing assisted dying, the people who already feel ignored by healthcare systems are more likely to fear accessing the care that they need at the end of their life. That would create further unnecessary suffering, and I know that we are all united in wanting to avoid that.

I do not doubt the good intentions of any Members choosing to support this Bill, and I thank the many constituents, on both sides of the debate, who have contacted me. However, we politicians have to be clear that Members with valid concerns about this Bill are raising them not because of some ideology or religious belief, but because we recognise that if this Bill passes, it may impact everyone, not just those who wish to die. It is not wrong or scaremongering to consider wider family life, relationships in which there are feelings of burden or coercion, and vulnerable women and people from the BME community at the end of their life. It is not wrong or scaremongering for us politicians, as we continue to receive correspondence from our constituents about the broken state of our NHS and social care, to think carefully about a Bill that may alter the relationship between doctors and their patients.

It is frankly insulting to disabled people and hard-working professionals up and down the country to have their many valid concerns about this Bill dismissed as religious beliefs. Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that instead of giving a universal right to dignity in death, this Bill would reinforce the health inequalities that deprive so many from our vulnerable communities of dignity in life. I urge Members to keep that at the forefront of their mind as we vote today, and to reject this Bill.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to speak in this debate, and I will focus on three amendments: new clause 9 and amendments 51 and 38. To save time, so that other Members can speak, I will not take interventions.

New clause 9, which is in my name, would essentially establish the standard of proof—namely, the degree of certainty and the amount of evidence—required in decision making under this Bill. Let me put that into context. Various standards of proof are used in law. At the very lowest end of the scale is reasonable belief, which is a belief that would be held by an ordinary person in the same circumstances. There is then the civil standard of proof, known as the balance of probabilities, which is sometimes known as the 50% plus one rule, or “more likely than not”. Finally, we have the most serious standard: the “beyond reasonable doubt” test, which applies for criminal cases. That goes further than the balance of probabilities, and requires the person to be sure.

Given the lack of clarity and confusion in Committee about whether the test for doctors should be reasonable belief or the balance of probabilities, I have proposed the new clause. As Members will see, it has three parts. Subsection (1) relates to the assessment by the co-ordinating and independent doctor. As Members will see, it has three parts. Subsection (1) relates to the assessment by the co-ordinating and independent doctor. Here I argue that the balance of probabilities test should be used, because it feels perhaps overly punitive to exclude someone from the process at the initial stage if it is more likely than not that they will meet the test, but there are some doubts. However, under subsection (2), when the assisted dying review panel is making its assessment, it must use the “beyond reasonable doubt” test. Given that, at this stage, it will have all the reports from the doctors and professionals, if it is not sure beyond a reasonable doubt, the application should not be approved. That is an essential safeguard.

Subsection (3) relates to the moment of supplying the lethal drugs. The doctor is required to satisfy themselves that the person has capacity and a clear, settled and informed wish to end their life, and is not being coerced. At that point, the “balance of probabilities” test does not suffice; it must be “beyond reasonable doubt”—this is life and death.

All hon. Members need to ask themselves whether, without this new clause, they are happy with someone being provided with lethal drugs to end their life by our NHS in circumstances where we are not absolutely certain of their intention. I acknowledge, for the record, that the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) has made an objection to the use of “beyond reasonable doubt”, asking whether it is right to apply a criminal standard of proof when a civil standard may be flexible enough. However, I note that in the House of Lords in re B case in 2008, Baroness Hale said,

“There are some proceedings, though civil in form, whose nature is such that it is appropriate to apply the criminal standard of proof,”

and a subsequent 2012 case affirmed that.

If we stay silent and let the assisted dying review panel and the courts try to work out whether they should interpret “satisfied” as meaning satisfied to the civil or criminal standard, it would merely result in numerous litigation battles. On a matter as serious as death, Parliament must provide the clarity needed. Without it, the Bill is simply not safe.

The second area I am focusing on is informed consent and complications, through amendment 51 to clause 11. The amendment would impose a duty on assessing doctors to inform individuals seeking an assisted death of any reasonable body of medical or scientific opinion indicating that the prescribed substance carries risks of complications, including pain. Clause 11 requires doctors to explain how the drug is expected to bring about death, and to discuss with the individual what ought to be done in the event of complications. However, it omits a critical element identified by the General Medical Council in its guidance on consent: the obligation to communicate known risks of harm and the uncertainty surrounding those risks. A patient cannot be said to give informed consent if they are not made aware of the full range of potential complications, including pain, distress and the possibility that the drug may not act as expected.

The state of Oregon’s most recent data shows that complications were recorded in approximately 3% of cases in 2023, but historical data shows a complication rate of 11%. Since the introduction of the law there, there have been nine recorded incidents of patients regaining consciousness after ingesting the prescribed substances, and time to death has ranged from three minutes to 137 hours—that is, more than five and a half days. Canadian studies indicate that around 5% of oral assisted deaths result in a prolonged and often distressing process. In some instances, medical intervention is required. Evidence also suggests that younger adults, particularly those aged 18 to 24, are more likely to experience extended and unpredictable deaths.

Furthermore, not all complications may be outwardly evident. High doses of barbiturates, combined with paralytic agents that suppress all voluntary muscle movement, may result in what outwardly appears to be a calm and peaceful death, but that may conceal considerable psychological suffering. The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) talks about offering choice, but a choice made in the absence of information is not true autonomy; it is abdication. Making a meaningful decision requires the individual to be aware of not only what is intended to happen, but what may plausibly go wrong. In both Oregon and California, legislation explicitly requires that patients be informed of any known risks associated with the medication to be administered, so why would we adopt a lesser standard here? The amendment simply calls for honesty.

Finally, but briefly, I also want to add my support for amendment 38, which clarifies that an individual who is not already terminally ill under the definition of clause 2(1) cannot qualify by refusing standard treatment or taking steps to induce a terminal condition. I live with type 1 diabetes, which, for the record, is a progressive illness that cannot be reversed by treatment. This condition is managed—or not, in cases of extreme stress—solely by the individual. I therefore recognise that the amendment is an incredibly important protection. Diabetics face multiple daily injections, and have to think about and monitor everything that they do, 24/7, and they can be at risk of diabetic distress, or even develop disordered eating. That could prove fatal if standard treatments are not accepted. They should never be offered assisted suicide; they could recover with the right support. I have spoken to the hon. Member for Spen Valley about my concern that conditions like diabetes may be caught unintentionally. The amendment would be a step to protect those who may be unable to protect themselves using standard means. Diabetes and anorexia have been a reason for assisted suicide in Oregon, so please be aware of what could happen.

Gaza: UK Assessment

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

It is the long-standing position of Governments of all stripes that it is for international courts to make determinations of that nature, and we will abide by our obligations under international humanitarian law.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

Since 2 March, no food or medical aid supplies have reached over 2.3 million Palestinians. Many of us from across this House have attended many statements and Westminster Hall debates and have submitted parliamentary questions asking the Government about this critical issue. The hostages still remain in captivity and need to be released, but the reality is that using aid to punish so many people is wrong. Does the Minister agree that under the genocide convention, the UK as a state party has an obligation not only to prevent and punish genocide, but to avoid actions that may assist or enable genocidal acts?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend asks important questions about aid access and the nature of aid delivery. Let me be clear: the UK will not support any aid mechanism that seeks to deliver political or military objectives or put vulnerable people at risk. The obligations under international humanitarian law and international law more broadly are clear, and they fall on Israel as the occupying power. It must abide by them.

Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I know that the Leader of the Opposition is not here, but I would say to her gently that she should agree with the whole House and recognise that her comments may inflame the situation, and that they are not just wrong but counterproductive in respect of the work that the Government are doing.

I commend Opposition Members who have spoken truth to power, and I express my solidarity with our two colleagues as well. Their treatment was very concerning, and the fact is that this a worrying trend: we have seen aid workers being denied access, and we have seen vital journalists being denied access. We know that atrocities are often committed in darkness, when people have something to hide. Does the Minister agree that the Israeli Government must stop shutting themselves off from the eyes of the world?

[Mr Falconer]

I have already spoken about the importance of parliamentary delegations, and I hope that they continue. I hope, too, that the free press of Israel—and, indeed, the whole international press—are able to operate within the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I have been deeply saddened and concerned to see that so many journalists have been killed in Gaza. As for the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, I should say to the House that I did inform her office that I intended to make some observations, so I am disappointed not to see her today to answer for them.

UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I thank the hon. Member for her comments, and I completely agree that that is the bare minimum that they should do.

A report by Hope Not Hate found that almost 90% of boys aged 16 to 18 in the UK have consumed content from Andrew Tate. On Elon Musk’s X, a platform that has dismantled its trust and safety teams, Tate’s videos dominate young men’s feeds. If we allow this climate to continue, we are handing digital platforms the power to dictate political debate, poison young minds and do irreparable damage to our democracy.

Of course, the loudest free speech warriors are the first to silence criticism, as I know from personal experience. After I called out Elon Musk for platforming extremism, Tate’s followers immediately descended on me with a flood of abuse and harassment. That was not random; it was a deliberate attempt to silence an elected representative. I was bombarded with death threats, rape jokes and abuse from accounts both local and international. Then the Tate brothers themselves came after me—two men running from the most serious criminal charges and propped up by the world’s most powerful leaders. They targeted me, an elected representative from Northern Ireland, for daring to speak my mind. It was not even about them—it was about Musk—but it was a calculated attempt to silence an elected politician. I was, in their words, “a nice target”. It was a direct attack on democracy and on this House itself.

This is not just about individuals; it is about democracy. We have seen a deliberate, organised effort to create an online environment where extremism flourishes, where intimidation becomes the norm, and where women, minorities and political opponents are driven out of public life.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this really important debate, and for her passionate speech. She highlights the ripple effect that will be created if we do not challenge social media companies. In the last general election, we saw so many women and black and minority ethnic candidates being targeted online by anonymous social media accounts, and much of that went unchecked. Does she agree that if we do not deal with this issue, we will see fewer people putting themselves forward to stand for public office?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I am really honoured that she is here today, because her voice is so important. When I was elected to the House last year, I was really proud to be here as part of a diverse Parliament. That diversity is welcomed across the House and is reflected on these Benches. That is good, but I have to be honest and say that we have heard from many parliamentarians—not just here, but across the UK—that if they had known what being an elected representative would bring to their life, they would not have stepped forward. But that is exactly what we need, because the social media companies want those voices to be silenced.

This is not just about our agreeing with the political views we like—absolutely not. I will defend to the hilt the right of people to express views that I absolutely do not agree with, because they need to be heard too. The hon. Member made a really important point, and I thank her for it.

The Northern Ireland Electoral Commission’s report on the 2024 UK general election laid bare that over half of candidates reported harassment, intimidation or abuse; one in ten faced severe abuse; and women were disproportionately targeted, as were minorities, often by anonymous accounts—the point just made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). The consequences were immediate: nearly 40% of candidates avoided solo campaigning and almost 20% avoided social media altogether. This is a system in which intimidation silences voices before they can even be heard. I have heard the same warnings from colleagues across this House, and the chilling effect is real.

It is much bigger than this too. Let us be clear: our democracy is under threat, and the battlefield is not just in Parliament or the ballot box, but online, where rogue states and billionaire tech moguls are manipulating public opinion for their own ends. The recent Romanian presidential election should have been a routine democratic process. Instead, it became a cautionary tale. A pro-Russian candidate who did not debate, did not campaign and supposedly spent nothing suddenly surged to the top of the first round, and the election was then annulled. That was digital interference in action—a warning for every European democracy, including our own.

If Members think that is just happening in Romania, they should think again. Here in the UK, over half of the public said they saw misleading information about party policies and candidates during the last general election. Nearly a quarter of voters say they have encountered election-related deepfakes, while 18% were not even sure if they had. The scale of the problem is staggering. Democracy does not function when voters cannot trust what they see or hear, yet the people in control of these digital platforms are not just bystanders, but active participants.

How is it that Elon Musk, now sitting in Trump’s Administration, owns one of the world’s biggest digital platforms, which has spiralled into a far-right cesspit? Remember when we thought silicon valley’s tech bros were going to make society better—more open and more progressive? Those days are long gone. Now they have tasted power and they are in the White House, endorsing the AfD—Alternative für Deutschland—in Germany, while their algorithms push misogynists and conspiracy theorists to the top of feeds.

This is not a glitch in the system; this is the system. It is a system that rewards the loudest, most divisive voices while drowning out facts and reasoned debate. If we care about democracy here in the UK, we need to stop treating social media giants as neutral platforms, and call them what they are: political actors. If we do not hold them to account, we are not just allowing misinformation to spread, but handing them the keys to our elections on a silver platter.

For online abusers, anonymity is not protection; it is a weapon, and overwhelmingly it is used against women and minorities. For centuries, democratic debate was based on people knowing who they were engaging with. Anonymity once existed to protect the speaker from harm. Now it enables the speaker to inflict harm with impunity. This is not about free speech; it is part of a political strategy; a co-ordinated effort to undermine trust in institutions, silence opposition and create a hostile environment for anyone who dares to challenge the status quo. When those in power let this happen—by dragging their feet on game-changing legislation, by gutting a private Member’s Bill and by potentially scrapping a digital tax, handing more money to the very platforms on which these predators thrive—they are sending a message. It is a message to every woman in public life and every girl in this country that their safety is not the Government’s problem.

What needs to be done? We must deprive these hate figures and predators of the oxygen of publicity. Why is it being tolerated? The Online Safety Act 2023 was outdated before it was even fully implemented. It is too slow and too weak, and the harms it was designed to address have only worsened. Regulators lack the power to challenge big tech, and Ministers are too afraid to stand up to Musk and Trump. Every concession emboldens these extremists, there is no appeasing them, and our children’s lives cannot be collateral damage in a reckless pursuit of growth.

Australia has taken decisive, world-leading action. It has introduced a full ban on social media for under-16s. Meanwhile, the UK’s digital age of consent remains 13. That means children as young as year 8 can legally sign up to platforms awash with violent misogyny, porn, self-harm content and extremist material. What more proof do this Government need? The safer phones Bill could have been a game changer. Instead, it was watered down, gutted and abandoned. Why? It was because this Government prioritised big tech’s profits over our children’s wellbeing. We do not need any more reviews or consultations, but we do need decisive, courageous action. While this Government dither, the average 12 to 15-year-old now spends 35 hours a week—more than a full-time job—on their phone.

Gaza: Israeli Military Operations

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members still want to get in, and there is an important statement to come, so could questions be a little briefer, please?

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for coming to the House and the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for raising the matter. I concur with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) in that we have been here before. We keep getting the same responses. Our constituents continue to write to us about this—they want hope. The reality is that over a thousand Palestinians have been killed within the last fortnight. Today marks a month since Israel broke that ceasefire, blocking critical aid into Gaza in defiance of international law. I ask the Minister—I know he and the Foreign Secretary are working hard—what more it will take before we as a UK Government take a different course of action, because Israel is not listening to warm words any longer.

[Mr Falconer]

My constituents in Lincoln have strong views about the horrors they see, and I know many constituents right across the country are writing to their Members and strongly expressing their views. I would not describe our policy as “warm words” and I think many of our friends in the region would not describe it as such either. We have taken concrete action since becoming the Government. We have restored aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We have taken the arms suspension measures that have been discussed. We have sanctioned settlers. We have continued to use our position at the UN Security Council to try to bring attention and action to some of the most egregious areas of concern, and we will continue to do so. I cannot promise this House that I will be able to return next time with something different to say. The fact that my remarks may seem repetitive indicates that the problem is difficult and the solution feels distant, but we must continue to work on the path that this whole House knows we must get back to, which is towards a two-state solution.

Conflict in Gaza

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

That is a huge concern, because we want to provide hope for those people, and we want to provide an alternative to Hamas. I repeat that there have been 17 months of bombardment, and if that was going to work, it would have worked. It has not worked, and going back to that means—as night follows day—that at the end of any military exercise, Hamas will still be there and we will still come back to a political process. Let us continue with the political process and the ceasefire talks now; let us extend phase 1 to the end of the Ramadan-Passover season, and let us work hard to get to phase 2.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Foreign Secretary mentioned, the ceasefire provided a glimmer of hope for the innocent civilians fleeing the constant bombardment and bloodshed, and for the innocent hostages waiting desperately to be reunited with their families. For Israel to breach that ceasefire is indefensible—the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure should not be justified under any circumstances. I thank the Foreign Secretary for the work he is doing and the personal efforts he is leading behind the scenes, including on the recent statement by the UK, German and French Foreign Ministers. As he knows, leadership requires honesty with our friends and telling things how they are. Will he commit to the UK showing leadership in providing international clarity to end this cycle of violence, and clarity on the really serious issue of international law breaches?

[Mr Lammy]

I commend my hon. Friend for bringing her moral clarity to the Chamber this afternoon. Of course I can confirm that we will continue to do all we can, and we stand by the judgments that we made back in September when we assessed that there was a clear risk of a breach of humanitarian law.

Gaza

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

I thank the hon. Lady for all her work in the community and also in the House, educating Members not just on the two sides that we always think about but on the Christian community in Gaza and in Palestine—the Palestinian Christians who are so much affected by the current conflict. She mentioned the UK’s position on settlements. I want to be clear that our position is that they are illegal under international law, present an obstacle to peace and threaten the physical viability of a two-state solution.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

Many Members have spoken about the importance of humanitarian aid, which is vital to saving so many lives, but the role of the aid workers who are working on the ground in horrific conditions is also vital. According to estimates, more than 320 have been killed, the highest number on record, but we see many aid organisations being attacked on social media, with claims that they have links to terrorist organisations. What more can the Minister do to make clear the Government’s support for these vital international aid workers and organisations? They include Islamic Relief, based in my constituency, which is one of the UK’s five non-governmental organisations certified by the core humanitarian standard in respect of aid and transparency. What more can we do to support these vital aid workers?

[Catherine West]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important work in this regard, and I thank those aid organisations that are based just across the river. Not only must aid reach those who need it in all areas, but the important work of aid workers must be respected and they must be protected. It is horrifying to hear reports that, for example, six babies have died from hypothermia and cold-related injuries in Gaza in just two weeks. Islamic Aid, the Red Cross and all the other organisations that make up the partnerships across the region must be able to get into Gaza to do their important work, and must also allowed to bring in goods such as tents, medical equipment and machinery that are needed to support the resumption of basic services in Gaza.

Sudan and Eastern DRC

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I met African ambassadors yesterday to discuss those very issues. We talked about the security and resilience of the African continent and of how, after a relatively peaceful period a decade or so ago when most of the discussion was about development, they are now concerned about those who are fighting proxy wars in different ways. That is not to say that regional powers will not have different interests, but when we see the behaviour of mercenaries and we look at the problems of arms sales in Africa and the damage that does to civilian life, we have to hold out for a political solution. We have to get back to dialogue and we have to get back to diplomacy. That is what I am seeking to emphasise in the statement.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I echo the praise for the Foreign Secretary’s visit last week. It is important that we continue to keep the spotlight on Sudan. Last week, I was able to visit an exhibition called “Children’s drawings”, arranged by Waging Peace and hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). It showed a series a pictures painted by young children—powerful images of child survivors of the genocide. One picture showed two army men fighting and an attack by the Janjaweed militia on a hut in a village. Inside the hut, at the bottom of the drawing, a soldier was raping a woman. The 80-page book details the resilience of those survivors, and also the trauma that those young children have gone through.

It is good to see cross-party support in the Chamber on this important issue. The Foreign Secretary is right—where is the outrage and the constant media coverage? There should be no hierarchy of conflicts. Every life is equal. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to the House that he will stand by the victims in Sudan for as long as it takes to get that stability?

[Mr Lammy]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work to press these issues. I repeat again: where is the liberal outrage? Where are the marches? Where are the emails flooding MPs’ inboxes? They are nowhere to be seen. Just a few years ago, the world rallied because of what it saw as horrendous events in Darfur. It is unbelievable that a few years later, the world seems to have forgotten. This is the moment to step up. This House has come together this week to remember those who were massacred in genocide during the Holocaust. These are very serious issues. Just as we have called out horrendous acts against humanity in the past, so we must call this out.

Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hamish Falconer]

I know that the right hon. Member has looked at these issues over a long period of time. Questions of complementarity are important, and I understand that they were considered by the pre-trial chamber.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

Several of our allies and international partners have outlined their commitment to fully support the ICC, including Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and Ireland, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to respect the independence of the ICC. Does the Minister agree that it has a high evidential threshold for issuing arrest warrants for alleged perpetrators, which has been demonstrated in this case?