War in Gaza

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The Government are always in favour of people being held to account for their actions. The hon. Lady will have gathered from what I have said at this Dispatch Box, today and on other occasions, that when there is a need for a transparent inquiry the Government always stand up for it. She said that aid had trickled into Gaza. She will know that as part of the Government’s intensive efforts, we have tried to ensure that the volume of aid is increased, and she will have heard what the Israeli Government said about flooding Gaza with aid. We are doing everything we can to increase the flow and hold the Israeli Government to account for what they have committed themselves to doing in respect of aid entering Gaza.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

We all want to see an immediate ceasefire on the part of all parties, and the release of all hostages. The United Nations reports:

“Cases of acute malnourishment among children continue to rise due to the unprecedented food crisis, deteriorating health, water and sanitation services, and widespread fear and stress undermining the ability of mothers to breastfeed their babies.”

Aid through Rafah has been very limited, and now that route has been cut off. Does the Minister consider the cutting off of aid routes to the civilian population to be a breach of the ICJ’s interim report?

Israel and Gaza

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I note that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that we will not release the advice, but I can only point to the precedent to which I referred earlier—one that has been strongly endorsed on both sides of the House.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The appalling deaths of children in Gaza have brought condemnation from around the world and, of course, immense psychological trauma to their families and friends. On 27 February, I asked the Minister whether he would recognise that the killing of 12,000 children shows clear evidence of collective punishment. The Minister did not answer my question. That figure has risen with the deaths of a further 1,000 children, so will he now answer my question and recognise that the killing of 13,000 children shows clear evidence of collective punishment?

[Mr Mitchell]

No, I will not do that, but I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in calling for Hamas to release all the hostages they are holding as swiftly as possible, so that the other points in the statement, which I hope I have set out clearly to the House, can be achieved.

Israel and Gaza

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman will have seen that the Foreign Secretary has recently been in Israel, as have many other members of the Government, including the Attorney General. We have a close relationship with many people across the political spectrum in Israel. He will also be aware that Israel is a rumbustious democracy in a region where there are not many democracies, and there are divergences of view among senior people in Israel. That is reflected in what we hear from Israel today.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I note the Minister’s earlier remarks on the topic, but Amnesty International UK is calling for the UK Government to suspend the supply of arms to the Israeli authorities given that serious violations amounting to crimes under international law are being committed. Will he accept the moral case for doing that? Will he revisit his policy? Will he also recognise that the killing of 12,000 children does show clear evidence of collective punishment?

[Mr Mitchell]

The earlier part of the hon. Lady’s question underlines the fact that these issues should not be resolved at the whim of Ministers but through the arms export Committee, which is both independent and legally advised. It is the toughest regime in the world and Ministers should look to it for guidance, which we do.

Israel and Palestine

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said about the importance of a sustainable ceasefire. He will have heard much the same from the official Opposition. As we showed at the United Nations, we are working towards achieving a sustainable ceasefire. In the run-up to that, we want to see humanitarian pauses that are as long and as immediate as possible. That is the policy that we will continue to pursue.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

On 11 December, along with other parliamentarians, I heard the harrowing eyewitness account of Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah, a British-Palestinian surgeon who had recently returned from Gaza. He spoke of the desperate state of the healthcare provision there, with a lack of essential supplies and no morphine for patients after surgery. He spoke of treating children, who he believes had phosphorus burns, with washing up liquid and vinegar, and without painkillers. He believes that medical teams need to be allowed to set up in-field hospitals, and that the most critically injured patients need to be allowed to leave Gaza. On 7 January, Israeli authorities denied a request by the World Health Organisation to deliver urgent medical supplies to the central drug store in Gaza city and al-Awda Hospital. Will the Government put pressure on Israel to allow the delivery of those vital supplies, and will the Government call for a permanent ceasefire?

[Mr Mitchell]

I have set out the reasons why calling for a permanent ceasefire is not, in our opinion, the right way to proceed. We need to call, as the United Nations resolution does, for a sustainable ceasefire, and we need to address the problems, which the hon. Lady set out so clearly, in the ways that we are: by trying to get more humanitarian supplies and support into Gaza, and to move towards the sustainable ceasefire that I think everyone agrees should take place.

Israel and Palestine

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain]

Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I was saying, the ceasefire resolution was an opportunity to bring the bloodshed to an end, but the UK chose to sit on its hands and do nothing—that was a choice that the UK made as a Government. Instead of taking the lead, the UK abstained, and instead of working on the lasting, peaceful resolution that we need to see, the UK confirmed, by making that choice, that it was content with a bloody status quo in which civilians are slaughtered in their thousands. Although that may be the view of the UK Government, let me make it absolutely clear—I think I speak for many hon. Members in this House—it is not the view of our constituents and it is not the view of the majority of the country. It leaves yet another moral stain on our Government and makes it clear that our foreign policy is set not by the Prime Minister or the Foreign Office but by the United States. All this Government have had to do, when ordered to jump by the US, is ask how high.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Imran Hussain]

I will not. Time does not permit it.

The UK’s failure to back the ceasefire resolution, and the ability of the United States to overrule 13 votes in favour of it, without a single other state against, frankly brings into question the legitimacy and viability of an international system that is so clearly broken. Indeed, when the UN Secretary-General is pleading for action and every UN agency is begging for a ceasefire to protect civilians, we have to ask ourselves this: what, exactly, is the point of the United Nations, when it can so easily be overruled and ignored? The situation is appalling and shameful and makes a mockery of any claim to support an international rules-based order with the UN at its core. Seventy-five years ago, we made a commitment to uphold human rights and international law for all people. It is time that our Government stopped only supporting the UN when it suits them and started supporting its efforts to protect civilians wherever in the word—not just in Gaza but in the west bank, and not just in Palestine but in Burma, Kashmir, Yemen, China and countless other regions across the globe.

Time permitting, I will take this opportunity again, on behalf of myself, the thousands of my constituents and the millions of people around this country who want to see an end to this bloodshed, to implore the Minister to listen to the calls of the public petitions, to other hon. Members, to the UN agencies and humanitarian organisations and to those in Gaza who are desperately calling out for help, and back the calls for a lasting ceasefire to end this bloodshed now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hollern]

I will make a bit of progress first.

The terrible crime does not justify the collective punishment of millions. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, around 18,000 Palestinians have now been killed. It is estimated that about 70% of them are women and children. While such deaths are occurring on a daily basis, the UK Government abstained in the votes on last week’s United Nations resolutions, which called for a ceasefire. They claim it will not happen: “Why call for it? It won’t happen.” Doing difficult things is what this Government should do. They say that it is too difficult to do things; they are taking the easy option. But we cannot stand by and watch the horrors we are witnessing every day.

Thousands of people have been left without sufficient food and water, and hospitals are on the verge of total shutdown as fuel runs out. Patients are undergoing surgery with no pain relief. Aid agencies continue to warn that the humanitarian disaster in Gaza is worsening by the minute. Some 2.3 million people are homeless and trapped in a tiny, embattled enclave with little food, water or medical attention.

Finally, on the ceasefire, I believe that the only way forward is an immediate ceasefire that is binding on all sides. It is for that reason that I voted for amendment (h) to the King’s Speech: I could not, in good conscience, have done anything else.

[Margaret Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I associate myself with her remarks calling for an immediate ceasefire—that is absolutely essential. Does she agree with Amnesty International, which is urging the UK Government to call on Israel to end its 16-year long illegal blockade of Gaza, starting by immediately suspending its recent increased restrictions on food, fuel, electricity and water, which is collective punishment amounting to a war crime?

[Kate Hollern]

I agree entirely. We must remember that this situation did not start on 7 October.

International calls for a ceasefire are numerous; they are coming from all over the world, apart from the US and the UK, and they will continue to grow. Yesterday, the World Health Organisation executive board adopted a resolution aimed at addressing the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza and again called for a ceasefire. Some 76% of the UK public support a ceasefire. Why are this Government not listening?

We have now had some humanitarian pauses, which were welcome, but a brief respite and the release of more than 100 hostages and 240 Palestinians in detention are insufficient. It is regrettable that world leaders failed to use the time to broker a permanent ceasefire. The only solution is a diplomatically negotiated one: a two-state solution that comprises a secure Israel and a sovereign Palestine is the only way to secure lasting peace.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Situation

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman speaks for everyone in the House when he abhors the loss of life among innocent civilians. On the humanitarian situation, he has referred to what the Prime Minister said before Prorogation. What the Prime Minister said is absolutely correct: Britain has not only been supplying humanitarian provisions into el-Arish so that they can go through Rafah when circumstances permit but has provided heavy lift materials so that others, as well as us, can move those supplies towards Rafah when they are able to get through. What the Prime Minister told the House is what everyone, not just Britain, is trying to achieve.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I thank the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for the work they have done to help facilitate the safe departure from Gaza of my constituent, Mr Abdel Hammad. Mr Hammad was in Gaza to perform kidney transplant operations as a charity volunteer with the Liverpool International Transplant Initiative. I pay tribute to his many years of humanitarian work in this field.

As we know, there have been thousands of deaths in this terrible conflict, so will the Minister urgently press all parties to agree to an immediate de-escalation and cessation of hostilities, and will he do all he can to bring about a peaceful resolution to this devastating conflict?

[Mr Mitchell]

In respect of the hon. Lady’s last point, I am not sure I can add to what I have already told the House, but I am very relieved to hear about her constituent. I will pass on her thanks to both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.

Gaza: Al-Ahli Arab Hospital Explosion

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman, as always, speaks with great thoughtfulness on this issue. The immediate and understandable expression of sympathy and condolence is absolutely right and proper, but that should not be conflated with a rush to judgment. Doing so has significant effects, and, as I have said, can quite credibly cause further pain, suffering and loss of life. We should all be conscious of that when we speak in the public domain.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the work he is doing to bring home my constituent who is trapped in Gaza. I note his comments about the consular support for UK nationals. I would be grateful for any further information he can provide—if he can—on facilitating the safe passage of UK nationals and the flow of humanitarian aid. I urge him to pursue these matters on his trip to the region later today.

[James Cleverly]

I assure the hon. Lady and the House that those are exactly the issues I will be raising on my forthcoming travel to the region. The consular team in the FCDO is making regular contact with those people in Gaza for whom we have contact details, to give them as much notice as possible as and when an exit route becomes available. At the moment that has not become available, but we will keep working to open humanitarian routes and to inform people once they are opened.

Elections Bill

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Does the Minister share the concern raised by Mencap that the introduction of voter ID could result in another barrier to people with a learning disability participating in elections?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The answer is no, we do not share that concern. We have conducted extensive pilots and we recognise that many people are concerned about the Bill, which is why we carried out extensive engagement explaining why there need not be any concerns about additional barriers on voter ID.

We also have the experience of Northern Ireland, where photographic identification has been required since 2003, following its introduction by the last Labour Government after the non-photographic model that had been in place since 1985 was deemed insufficient to stamp out fraud. A free voter card will be available for voters without suitable photographic identification and we are working closely with the Electoral Commission, which will deliver a clear and comprehensive communication campaign on the new requirements. While the list of acceptable identifications in the Bill is wide-ranging, I wish to reassure this House that, should further forms of photo identification become available and be sufficiently secure, the powers in the Bill are such that additional identification can be added or removed as necessary without the need for further primary legislation. For these reasons, the Government cannot support this amendment.

I ask the House to disagree with Lords amendments 22 and 23, which seek to remove clauses 14 and 15 from the Bill. The purpose of clause 14 is to make provision for the introduction of a strategy and policy statement setting out guidance to which the Electoral Commission must have regard in the discharge of its functions. Some parliamentarians have claimed that this duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement will weaken the commission’s operational independence, which is not correct. This duty will not allow the Government to direct the commission’s decision making, nor will it undermine the commission’s other statutory duties or displace the commission’s need to carry out those other duties. Clause 15 simply expands the role of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and empowers it to examine the commission’s performance of its duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement.

In the other place, technical amendments to these clauses were made in Committee before the clauses were removed on Report. If this House disagrees with Lords amendment 22, the series of amendments we have proposed to the words so restored to the Bill will reinstate those technical amendments to clause 14. Amendments (c) and (f) to (h) reflect the parliamentary consequences of recent machinery of government changes. The other technical changes to the words so restored to the Bill, amendments (a) and (b), will ensure that the strategy and policy statement must not relate to the devolved functions of the Electoral Commission. Consequently, amendments (d), (e) and (i) provide that Scottish and Welsh Ministers are no longer statutory consultees on the strategy and policy statement. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the House to disagree with Lords amendments 22 and 23 and to agree to amendments (a) to (i) and to the words so restored to the Bill.

Given the strength of feeling, although the Government strongly reject the characterisation that clause 14 will weaken the commission’s operational independence, we have heard the concerns and tabled amendments (a) to (k) in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23. Amendment (a) will require the Secretary of State, when preparing a statement, to have regard to the duty placed on the commission by section 145(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to monitor and ensure compliance with the rules set out in that Act. Further, the amendment will prohibit the statement from including reference to specific investigatory or enforcement activity. That provides further reassurance on the commission’s operational independence.

On the parliamentary approval procedure in relation to the statement, the Government’s view is that the affirmative resolution procedure will provide both Houses of Parliament with appropriate opportunities to debate and scrutinise the statement in full before determining whether to approve or reject it. However, we have listened to the concerns raised and, to provide further reassurance, the Government tabled amendments (c) to (h), (j) and (k) in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23. These amendments provide for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of a statement that has been subject to statutory consultation under new section 4C of the 2000 Act by providing both Houses with a supplementary opportunity to consider the draft statement and make representations before it is laid for approval. The amendments also make consequential changes to clause 14.

Amendments (b) and (i) in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23 will require the Secretary of State to publish a response to the statutory consultation on the statement, and to respond to requests from the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission for the statement to be revised.

Taken together, these provisions, in addition to those already built into clause 14 relating to parliamentary approval and consultation, should provide significant reassurance to Members of both Houses on the concerns about the strategy and policy statement. In particular, the amendments put beyond doubt the question of whether the statement could be used to unduly influence individual enforcement activity or to give guidance without the Secretary of State considering the commission’s monitoring and compliance duties.

On clause 25, the Government have listened to the concerns raised by parliamentarians and by representatives of civil society organisations in recent meetings. Lords amendment 44 means that any order to remove or vary the description of a category of third-party campaigner can be made only where it gives effect to a recommendation of the Electoral Commission, which will provide a necessary safeguard against any future Government who potentially seek to misuse the clause.

The Government have also carefully considered the concerns relating to clause 27. These measures were not designed to disproportionately affect any particular group. Given the strength of feeling on this issue, the Government tabled Lords amendment 50 to remove the clause from the Bill. I ask the House to support this amendment.

It is standard practice for the Government to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of Acts following Royal Assent, but we took on board the desire to ensure in the legislation that that scrutiny took place. Lords amendment 80 supports the joint aim on both sides of the House that the operation of these measures is assessed following the implementation of the Bill, while ensuring sufficient time has passed and processes are embedded enough for the scrutiny to be meaningful and effective. For these reasons, I commend the amendment to the House.

Lords amendments 1 to 5 make changes to clause 7, narrowing its scope so that the provisions do not unintentionally prevent legitimate campaigning by candidates outside the time that a person completes their postal ballot or legitimate opinion polling activity. Lords amendments 112 to 116 make the same changes in relation to Northern Ireland.

Lords amendments 9 to 12, 45, 64 to 79, 81 to 85, 87, 105 to 110 and 118 to 124 are technical and clarifying amendments. As the House will be aware, the Bill represents an extensive and ambitious portfolio of work in a complex and detailed body of law. The amendments ensure the measures are fit for purpose and operate as intended.

Following extensive engagement with the devolved Administrations in the preparation and drafting of the policy, the Scottish and Welsh Governments unfortunately declined to consent to applying certain measures to devolved polls. It was therefore necessary for the Government to table Lords amendments 6 to 8, 13, 14, 24 to 28, 30 to 33, 37, 38, 40 to 43, 46 to 48, 51 to 63, 88 to 102, 117, 125 and 126 to ensure the measures apply to reserved matters only. I therefore ask the House to agree to these necessary amendments.

Lords amendments 15 to 19 strengthen the provisions in clause 9 that seek to expand the provision for voters with disabilities from a narrow and restrictive provision specific to blind and partially sighted voters to one that supports the needs of a wider range of voters with disabilities, increasing the overall accessibility of our elections. For too long, we have had a requirement in law to provide a single device, which has hindered innovation in this area. We are grateful for the work of Lord Holmes, who worked with both the Government and external organisations to strengthen these measures in the Bill by specifically highlighting the importance of supporting electors’ ability to vote independently and secretly, all while maintaining our policy aim of moving away from a limited prescriptive approach to more flexibility and innovation. These amendments will also enable the support for disabled voters to be monitored effectively through Electoral Commission reporting, and will require in law that there is guidance to promote consistency, for which returning officers must have regard. That guidance will be developed in consultation with organisations representing people with disabilities. For those reasons, I commend the amendments to the House.

The Government also support Lords amendments 20, 21, 103, 104 and 111 tabled by Lord Hayward. These amendments make sensible changes to the rules for candidates standing in elections, which were first raised in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). Lords amendment 21 will allow candidates the additional option of citing their local authority area on the ballot paper for UK parliamentary elections, as they already can for local elections. That will make it easier for candidates to demonstrate locality while preserving protection for their personal safety. I particularly thank my hon. Friend for raising this topic and I hope he is pleased with that outcome.

Lords amendments 20, 103, 104 and 111 widen the scope of the current provisions concerning the use of commonly used names to allow candidates to include on their nomination paper any name they commonly use as a forename or surname, such as their middle name. This is already facilitated in practice by returning officers, but it is not provided for in existing electoral law, so it is right that the Bill is amended for consistency. I commend these amendments to the House.

Lords amendments 34, 35 and 36, tabled by Baroness Noakes, are technical amendments that bring this clause into line with more standard accounting practices, so I commend them to the House. Finally, Lords amendments 49, 29 and 39 were brought forward in the other House by Lord Hodgson. I am pleased to confirm that the Government are supporting them. They will introduce a duty on the Electoral Commission to produce a statutory code of conduct, providing much-needed certainty for third-party campaigners on how to comply with the rules related to third-party campaigning.

British Council Staff: Afghanistan

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to praise the work of the British Council. It has been instrumental in the work in Afghanistan to support the UK mission there. Ministers across Departments such as Defence and the Home Office are in constant contact, but as I have set out, employees have already been able to resettle to the United Kingdom. The contractors will be eligible based on their risk.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I, too, declare an interest in that I have also previously worked for the British Council. More than 20 million people are facing the prospect of starvation in Afghanistan and the situation could not be more urgent. In relation to the Minister’s earlier responses, could she tell the House how much of the £286 million of aid promised in this financial year has been disbursed so far?

[Amanda Milling]

As I have said, international aid to the region is absolutely essential and we are working with our international partners to ensure that we get that assistance to those on the ground. We are co-ordinating with our partners. We have doubled the aid for this financial year to £286 million, which will be used to ensure that we get that humanitarian assistance to those on the ground.

Oral Answers to Questions

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

What recent assessment the Government have made of the political and humanitarian situation in Yemen.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

What recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts on securing a permanent ceasefire in Yemen.

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

The UK is deeply concerned about the humanitarian crisis and conflict in Yemen. We fully support the UN peace process and urge all parties to engage constructively with it. The UK has shown extensive leadership in this response, committing nearly £1 billion in support to Yemen since the conflict began. I recently conducted a virtual visit to Yemen, meeting special envoy Martin Griffiths, Yemeni Foreign Minister al-Hadrami and Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdul Salam, and I urged all parties to engage with the UN peace process.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

I completely agree that the UK’s response to coronavirus is important, but we have not allowed it to distract us from the important international work. I recently announced considerable funding support for the humanitarian work in Yemen. As I say, I have had extensive conversations with parties right across the board, and indeed with regional countries, to support the Saudi ceasefire and encourage the Houthis also to engage with that ceasefire. We will maintain our responsibility —we will match our responsibility to the people of Yemen, and I can absolutely guarantee that that will continue under this Government.

[Margaret Greenwood [V]]

Yemen is facing a humanitarian disaster. According to UNICEF, there are 1.7 million internally displaced children and 2 million children who are acutely malnourished, so what conversations has the Minister had with other Government Departments to ensure that the UK can play its part in addressing this catastrophe?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Lady highlights the important work of properly connected government when it comes to UK foreign policy. That is absolutely what under- pins the Prime Minister’s integrated review and his announcement of the merger of DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. She is absolutely right to suggest that, in order to protect the people of Yemen most properly, whether young or old, the UK Government must work with a co-ordinated approach. I regularly speak with ministerial colleagues in other Government Departments about Yemen, as well as with our international partners. I thank her for so clearly highlighting why it is important that Government Departments work closely on this, as on other issues.