Humanitarian Situation in Sudan
Shockat Adam Excerpts(2 days, 7 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
Harpreet Uppal
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which I will come to next.
Hoy da and the Sudanese diaspora community continue to play a pivotal role in assisting families, relatives and friends through financial remittances, but Hoy da told me that
“their needs are much bigger than the capacities of individuals”
and that international communities must come together to
“accelerate efforts and initiatives for de-escalation that may lead to a permanent end to the fighting.”
I thank Hoy da and all members of the Sudanese diaspora community. I know how much of an impact supporting loved ones stuck in danger will be having both emotionally and financially.
I am also aware that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has, under previous Administrations, committed to a diaspora engagement strategy, but that strategy has not been produced, which represents a missed opportunity. Without access to decision makers, diaspora and civil society groups cannot utilise their knowledge of the crisis to help shape policies. During the MSF roundtable that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) mentioned, we heard the stories of medical workers in El Fasher. They were performing a caesarean section when soldiers from the RSF burst in, killing the patient and her unborn child. That is the reality of a healthcare system that is being systematically attacked.
Recent publications by organisations working in Sudan document testimonials from people displaced from El Fasher and Zamzam in North Darfur, from which thousands fled to Chad after an RSF attack on the Zamzam camp. During that mass displacement, one mother told an aid worker that several of her children died of thirst on the road. Another spoke of pregnant women dying as they walked. One woman was raped during the attack. All left loved ones behind in El Fasher, a place they described simply as “hell”.
Those testimonies reflect just a fraction of the suffering taking place across the region, so let me turn to Darfur specifically. Its population of around half a million people is in dire humanitarian need. Following the April attacks on Zamzam internally displaced persons camp, half a million IDPs have been moved to Tawila, a small town in North Darfur. They face a catastrophic shortage of food, water, shelter, household items and healthcare. The wind and rains, which are due to start within weeks, will destroy shelters and contribute to the spread of disease.
The mass killings, rape, ethnic violence, starvation and humanitarian crisis that we are witnessing can no longer be tolerated by the international community, but frontline organisations are being pushed to breaking point. Agencies have told us that cuts to official development assistance have made it harder to maintain services; without urgent intervention, a major funding cliff edge is approaching in September. That is when multiple key humanitarian programmes are due to expire, with no confirmed renewal.
If the funding gap is not urgently addressed, the consequences for those relying on aid in places such as Darfur and Tawila will be devastating. The UK Government have made Sudan a stated foreign policy priority. I welcome the steps already taken, but the operational reality on the ground remains dire.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this really important debate; it is often said that Sudan is the forgotten conflict. Does she agree that we must urge the United Nations to enforce its resolution 2736, which mandates lifting the siege, particularly in the city of El Fasher, and facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid?
Harpreet Uppal
I was about to come on to that point, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for making it.
I know from conversations with organisations working in Sudan, and from previous discussions with Ministers, that the FCDO is trying to create a credible process for access and protection, and to exert influence in international forums, including in our role as the pen holder on Sudan at the UN Security Council. The UK introduced a Security Council resolution that called for protection of civilians and full, unimpeded aid access. The Foreign Secretary noted that he was appalled that Russia vetoed the resolution.
I know that the Foreign Secretary has a personal commitment to the crisis, having visited the Sudanese and Chad border earlier this year. Indeed, the Sudan conference hosted by the Foreign Secretary in April was another positive step, as was the commitment for an additional £120 million in aid from the UK, and the raising of €800 million from nations attending the conference.
However, despite the best efforts of UK Ministers and officials, the conference did not deliver on its primary aim of finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict.
Middle East
Shockat Adam Excerpts(3 days, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
Yes, yes, yes. My hon. Friend talks about the statements of Ehud Olmert. It is also right to say that others—Yair Golan, Yair Lapid, Benny Gantz and Ehud Barak, the former IDF chief—have all condemned what Minister Katz has suggested, and I too condemn it wholeheartedly.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Last week, as a Minister met Yair Golan, shaking hands, smiling and taking photographs, a Palestinian mother faced a dilemma: should she stay where she is and see the starvation of her children, or should she venture out and see the children being blown to pieces, adding to the 17,000 others who have died and the 10 a day whose limbs are blown off? These children do not need these empty words. Words will not stop their bleeding, they will not stop their killing, they will not nourish their bodies and they will not stop the tears of their mothers. I agree with the Secretary of State that even recognising the state of Palestine today would not make any difference to the children on the ground, so will he take a tangible step and propose a British-led, internationally supported hospital in Gaza, in partnership with a coalition of the willing, to provide some remnants of humanity in this darkest of hours?
Mr Lammy
Notwithstanding the huge humanitarian catastrophe that is taking place in Gaza, I am proud of the work of UK-Med, the funding we have been able to give it and the extra money that I have announced today, and that medical aid is getting through to relieve some suffering. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We will continue to do more, and I reassure him that I am working with my Jordanian counterparts, in particular, to see what more we can do to alleviate that suffering.
Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy
Shockat Adam Excerpts(1 week 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
David Smith
I thank the right hon. Member for that point, for his work as Foreign Secretary to bring about the role that I now inhabit, and for his focus on freedom of religion or belief. I agree—I will come on to say more about this—that we should be humble yet bold about what we can offer with our values and should not shy away from these issues because of perceived political correctness or whatever it may be.
It is easy to talk about principles such as freedom, human rights, respect, tolerance or justice, but it is far harder to live up to their meaning in our actions. The history of this country, however, is one in which we have worked hard to create a plural society based on those values. We do not always get it right, but I am proud that in the UK today, we are free to practise our religion or belief without fear of persecution. My constituency of North Northumberland is home to worshipping communities that stretch back to Saxon times. My constituents have precious freedoms—too precious not to share. That is what the strategy is about. The world needs FORB, and Britain is uniquely placed to champion it. Championing FORB will be good for Britain too.
Let me talk about the need and situation in the world at the moment. Most Members are well aware of the challenges we face, but some facts bear repeating. According to the Pew Research Centre, the number of countries with high or very high levels of Government restrictions on FORB is at its highest level since 2007. At the community level, social hostilities involving religion are also on the rise, further reducing respect for human rights in general and FORB in particular. For example, according to the charity Open Doors, 380 million Christians are persecuted worldwide because of their faith.
Persecution on the basis of religion or belief, whether by states or social groups, is taking place on every continent in the world. It involves social ostracism, police harassment, arbitrary detention, denial of citizenship, assault, destruction of sites of religious worship, torture and killings. In Pakistan, Ahmadiyya Muslims are not recognised as Muslims by the state, and their mosques have repeatedly been desecrated by extremist groups. In Iran, the Baha’i are acutely vulnerable to scapegoating, incitement and threats of violence from state authorities. In North Korea, those seeking to exercise their right to freedom of religion or belief face surveillance and arbitrary detention, with Christians and others treated as political criminals if their faith is discovered.
Those are not niche issues. FORB is central to the problems of the world today. Horrific acts, such as the murder of worshippers in a church in Damascus last month, are not only attacks on people for what they believe in, but attempts to destabilise societies and spread division. FORB demonstrates the core principle that human rights are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Those who have no freedom to worship have no freedom of assembly. Those who have no freedom of belief have no freedom of conscience. Those who have no freedom to share their faith have no freedom of speech. Those who have no freedom to practice their faith or belief are not equal in dignity and rights.
Those sound like obvious principles, but we must humbly remember that our own country took many centuries to discern them. For many long, sometimes shameful, periods of our own history we were better known as religious persecutors ourselves, oppressing those who did not believe in whichever strand of Christianity was ascendant at the time. We approach the rest of the world as a country that has erred and learned and that wants other nations to avoid our own mistakes. Countries that respect FORB and where all constituent communities can flourish are more stable, more secure and more prosperous.
So to the strategy. The Government have formally made a new commitment to the centrality of FORB in their foreign policy, and I am delighted to be a small part of that through my role as the envoy. FORB will play its own distinctive part in our foreign policy. There are two top-line aims of that approach. The first is simply to reduce the number of countries in which the right to FORB is significantly curtailed, and the second is to promote FORB internationally as essential to human flourishing.
There are five strands to the strategy. The first is engagement with multilateral institutions and forums to maintain collective support for FORB around the world. I am very proud that the UK has a history of championing FORB within the international rules-based order—something that seems to be under attack a lot of the time at the moment—not least as an original supporter of the universal declaration of human rights in 1948 and of the international covenant on civil and political rights in 1966.
We will continue to work with international partners to take country-specific action where appropriate, whether through the UN’s universal periodic review process or by promoting FORB in multilateral resolutions. That strand underpinned, for example, my visit to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva just two weeks ago to give the UK Government statement on the right of Tibetan Buddhists, and not the Chinese Communist party, to determine the succession of the Dalai Lama. The second strand of our approach is bilateral engagement with countries where we feel we can make a difference.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for the brilliant, nuanced speech that he is making about our role and its importance. Does he agree with me and with Amnesty International that there are more than 1 million Muslim Uyghurs in prison camps in the Xinjiang region of China, and that we can work effectively by ensuring that products made in that region, for example cotton, do not find their way on to the high streets in this country?
David Smith
In my six months in this role as envoy, a repeated refrain has been that we must not forget the Uyghur Muslims of Xinjiang. I was very pleased to take part in an all-party parliamentary group meeting with human rights champions from Xinjiang in the last few weeks. The hon. Member is right: we must ensure that our procurement as a country and our approach to international economics and business does not in any way buttress the oppression of the many Uyghurs in China.
The second point of the strategy is to build bilateral relationships, and I will say more on a moment on the countries I will focus on. The third strand is international coalitions of collective action, so that we can work together with the coalition of the willing. There are some countries that are more engaged in freedom of religion or belief than others, and we want to work with those who are passionate about this issue. We are proud to be, for example, members of the Article 18 Alliance and the International Contact Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief, and we will continue to double down on those relationships.
The fourth of the five strands is about weaving support for FORB throughout the Government’s human rights agenda and foreign policy, because FORB is an acid test for the health of other human rights. That means bolstering our efforts to increase awareness and understanding of FORB within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and across Government, as well as ensuring that tools, training and research are available to staff. I will report annually on that work, including at the highest levels of Government.
Finally, the fifth strand is about working with civil society and religious groups because, frankly, a lot of the time they know what is happening on the ground even better than our posts and diplomatic missions around the world do. We need to try and draw them in and rely on what they are telling us. From sharing information to fostering understanding and respect between different religious or belief communities on the ground, civil society and religious group engagement is central to the protection and promotion of FORB.
We will focus our bilateral engagement on 10 specific countries, chosen for their historical or geographical links that place the United Kingdom in a special position of influence; because we believe that there is a potential to make a difference now; and because of their place on the Pew Research Centre index, in terms of high levels of FORB persecution. Those countries are, in alphabetical order, Afghanistan, Algeria, China, India, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, Ukraine and Vietnam.
This is an ambitious strategy. It places a high level of confidence in our country’s ability to seek justice around the world. It requires buy-in from Government, from parliamentarians, from civil society and from religious groups. It will need resource allocation and, more importantly, it will need support. It will need this place to champion it at a time when sometimes voters are increasingly concerned with problems closer to home. It will require Government to own, centre and adequately resource it, and to know that the cost of failure is high. This strategy could lead not just to freedom for millions around the world, but to a flourishing here in the UK.
I believe that strong support for freedom of religion or belief around the world could be both a blessing to the world and a blessing to the United Kingdom. We use quite dry words such as “strategy”, but in the end I think this is about a blessing.
I remember, in a previous life, marching years ago on the G8 at Gleneagles for international debt relief; it seemed an impossible dream at the time, but we got it. I remember working in my first job, which was on peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, and wondering whether the Good Friday/Belfast agreement would hold, but it held. I remember working more recently, housing homeless people who had spent years on the street, and wondering whether they could rebuild their lives, but they did.
Britain has a remarkable capacity to deliver good things. We have the wealth, the expertise and cultural generosity to turn bad into good, both locally and internationally. In other countries, that does not always happen. There are not many places where social conflict turns into lasting peace.
It would be a thankless waste of centuries of history and democracy to turn away from those abroad who desperately need us. In the contemporary climate, the temptation is to raise the drawbridge and focus our efforts only at home but, if we direct some of our generosity outwards, we will store up blessings not only in other countries, but for ourselves. There is something profoundly life-giving about sharing what we have with others. We need think only about Bosnia, Kosovo and Sierra Leone to recall some of the positive impact that this country has made in the past 20 years.
Promoting FORB revitalises our national story, challenges our darker impulses and creates a future to work towards. That is the role of FORB in Britain’s foreign policy—not as a policy, but as a blessing for those who need and deserve freedom. The persecuted need us. We can help them, and in doing so we will positively shape Britain and the world’s future for generations to come.
Oral Answers to Questions
Shockat Adam Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Earlier this month, the US President ordered the brutal Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles, and called those protesting against these raids “paid insurrectionists” and “criminal invaders”. A few days later, a gunman assassinated Democratic politician Melissa Hortman. In recent months, figures associated with the US President have spread disinformation and polarising rhetoric via social media, even targeting a Government Minister. I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that this level of political violence—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is topical questions; I have to get other people in. Questions are meant to be short and punchy. Please, let us now hear a quick answer from the Foreign Secretary.
Middle East
Shockat Adam Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
It would be quite wrong for me to go into eventualities and operational matters at this Dispatch Box at this time, but the hon. Gentleman should be reassured that all contingency arrangements are in place to keep our people safe and to work with our allies to keep the region safe.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The most in-depth study ever conducted of the casualties of the so-called war on terror was carried out by Brown University in America, which found that, directly or indirectly, more than 4.5 million people lost their lives partly because of what was voted for in this House. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the only way in which this conflict can be resolved is through diplomacy, and can he assure the House that he will not follow the last Labour Government and the mantra of the former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair when it comes to America’s bombing a middle eastern country—“with you, whatever” —and lead this country and the world into the abyss?
Air India Plane Crash
Shockat Adam Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
Regrettably, in incidents of this scale, identification tends to take some time. Through family liaison officers in the UK and consular staff, we are trying to support British nationals and those affected in India and here in the UK to enable the contribution of DNA. If any right hon. or hon. Member wants to ensure that their constituents get support through that process in India or here in the UK, they should please not hesitate to be in touch.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
When news of the tragedy came last week, it served as a real unifier in my great city of Leicester—it unified us in shock, absolute disbelief and mourning. I take this opportunity to remember the names of those who lost their life who were associated with my great city: Hardik Avaiya, Vibhooti Patel, Pooja Patel, Harshit Patel, Ajay Kumar Ramesh and Faizan Rafik. We also had the one sole survivor, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh.
When I visited the families, it was great to see so much support from their neighbours, of all faiths and no faith. Indeed, during our darkest time we saw the best of my city. A couple of families mentioned some difficulty in accessing information. Will the Minister look urgently at communications with the families, so that they can get support at this very difficult time? My message to them, as I am sure the whole House will agree is this: you are not alone.
Mr Falconer
I agree with the hon. Gentleman—they are not alone. In relation to any questions about the experience of our consular support, I invite right hon. and hon. Members to ensure that I am aware, both in relation to the tragic incident in India, but also in Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Iran. As the Minister for consular affairs, let me say that it is important that we understand what the experience is like for people on ground. In relation to this incident, as I told the shadow Foreign Secretary, I spoke with teams this afternoon to ensure that UK support is as clearly signposted as possible on the ground.
Iran-Israel Conflict
Shockat Adam Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I call to mind the work of the IAEA, and refer my hon. Friend to the resolution of the UN Security Council just last week, all of which confirmed Iran’s intent and its deception.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Last week, this House was united in supporting the long-overdue recognition of a Palestinian state, and we urged the Minister to advocate for that at the United Nations conference in Saudi. That has now gone up in smoke. We believed that the US-Iran nuclear peace negotiations were coming close to fruition, so does the Minister share my concern that Netanyahu’s Government may be seeking to create further instability in the region, to block progression for peace and the recognition of the Palestinian state, and to distract from the genocide in Gaza?
Mr Lammy
I do not believe that that sits behind the action that we are seeing at this time. I do believe that the way forward is de-escalation and diplomacy.
USAID Funding Pause
Shockat Adam Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew)—who cut his teeth in the continent and the country in which I was born, Malawi—for securing this important debate.
We are seeing the dismantling of the world order that we created. I sincerely believe that we stand at a crossroads of not just policy, but principle. The United Kingdom has long prided itself on punching above its weight, not just militarily, but with moral leadership. Having said that, to address the point made by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), it was Tony Blair—the “hard left”—who said that Putin should have a seat at the table and gave him a pair of silver 10 Downing Street cufflinks.
With our moral leadership, through decades of smart and targeted overseas aid, we have saved lives and shaped the world in our image—an image that is just, resilient and humane. The decision that we have made to cut overseas aid by £6 billion is lowering our commitment, such that overseas aid will be at its lowest level in 25 years. That not only betrays the world’s most vulnerable people; it betrays us. It betrays who we are and what we stand for.
Let us be clear: aid is not just about generosity. We all know that. It is also about foresight. I am an optometrist, and this decision is extremely myopic. Aid is about security for us in the long term. It is about stability and recognising that the surest way to keep disease, conflict and extremism from reaching our shores is to invest in preventing them, rather than reacting in panic when they emerge. In my opinion, cutting aid while increasing defence spending is putting the cart before the horse. How can we talk about protecting our nation while we tear down the very programmes that prevent wars, contain pandemics—have we already forgotten covid?—and stabilise fragile regions?
These aid cuts are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they are unprotected lives, including children who are unprotected because they are unvaccinated, whose futures will be erased. For example, over the past four years our support for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance has helped to immunise 1 billion children. Now that we are reducing the funds for aid, we risk reversing decades of progress. Measles, polio, typhoid—these are not diseases of the past. They are clawing their way back and our retreat invites them in. We have seen what our aid can do. In just two years, the Reach Initiative helped to boost immunisation rates in conflict zones from 16% to 96%, reaching more than 9 million children. Are we now to abandon those children in the name of “sharpening focus”?
The UK’s aid has helped to provide antiretroviral therapy to 23 million people, distributed 133 million malaria nets and, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), educated more than 1 million girls in the world’s hardest places. Are we about to cut this system to meet a political target or to mimic a short-sighted policy from across the Atlantic?
Aid fosters growth over time. Since 1960, the International Development Association has helped 36 countries through loans and grants; 19 of them have seen economic development to such a degree that they are now giving money to the IDA rather than receiving it.
Let us not kid ourselves. This aid cut is not about leadership; to me, it looks like retreat. While following the USA in gutting aid programmes might seem politically expedient, it is morally bankrupt and strategically reckless. This policy will stoke the very fires that we seek to extinguish—displacement, disease and extremism—and send their embers across the globe. And what of our standing on the world stage? Are we prepared to go from aid superpower to spectator, and to shrug while global poverty, education and health collapse under the weight of our absence? While we pull back, authoritarian regimes are—as we speak—filling the void with their influence, their ideologies and their terms. I believe that we should increase our investment in global health security, not scale it back. Our aid was not charity, in a world still reeling from covid and now facing new disease outbreaks; it was, in fact, an insurance policy against global collapse.
Now is not a time for retreat; it is a time for us to lead, with compassion, clarity and courage. We must not allow short-term politics to cause long-term catastrophe. We must restore our commitment to giving 0.7% of GNI, reassert our leadership in education in particular, global health and crisis response, and protect not just lives overseas, but the future of our nation and the values that we claim to defend.
We are not just donors; we are architects of a safer and more stable world. Let us not dismantle what we have built.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Shockat Adam Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to these issues and for his important question. As the House will see, the UK has led with 26 of our allies on a statement on humanitarian issues, and with three leaders from the UK, France and Canada, and today with five others in relation to the sanctions on those two men. I can assure the House that we will work with a range of our partners in different formats in order to achieve the objectives that I know are felt so keenly right across the house.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Ben-Gvir is so extreme that the Israeli Government themselves banned him from joining the army, and that was three decades ago. So if the Minister will please excuse me, I am not going to extend a warm welcome to this announcement. The fact is that this is a matter of trust. The Government tell us they are going to cease arms sales to Israel, yet F-35 fighter jet parts get to Israel, massacring young children. The Government tell us they are appalled by the actions of the Israeli Government, yet Government Ministers find themselves partying with the Israeli ambassador and Holocaust trivialisers. The Government tell us that they are ceasing trade deals with Israel, yet the very next week a trade envoy is sent to Israel to drum up business. Who are the Government trying to fool?
Mr Falconer
It is a shame that the hon. Member does not feel in a position to welcome these announcements. These are important steps taken with our allies. The UK is leading the world on these issues, and we will continue to do so.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Shockat Adam Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for the question. I think I have been clear on that point, but yes, the United Nations should deliver the aid, in the principled way that it has previously.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Ward Jalal is a six-year-old Palestinian girl who, last week, crawled out of a burning school, leaving behind her mother and two siblings, who burned to death. I mention Ward because she is Palestinian. Last month, there was Al-Haq’s case against the Government. By September 2024, 40,000 innocent Palestinian men, women and children, like Ward and her family, were killed. The Government reviewed 413 cases and found one possible breach of international law, which was the killing of volunteers at the World Central Kitchen. Do the Government have any regard for children like Ward and the Palestinian people?
Mr Falconer
Of course we have regard to and concerns for Palestinian people. The questions at issue in the assessment of risk are complicated legal ones. They are complicated because the corpus of international humanitarian law ends up relying a great deal on what is in the mind of a commander when they make a decision. International humanitarian law is tightly constrained, and it is difficult to make conclusions about what is in the mind of a commander who will not share their thoughts with us. That is why, when we make determinations, we consider other limbs of international humanitarian law. We are not saying that in all the cases, the action was proportional and necessary to meet the military objectives, but where we cannot determine that, we can look to other limbs. Those limbs include the obligations on an occupying power relating to the provision of aid and the treatment of detainees. Those are easier tests to meet, because they do not require knowing what is the mind of a commander.