G7
Steve Yemm Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
As right across Europe we see a cost of living crisis, it is right and proper that we pool our efforts, and that respective Treasury Departments and Finance Ministers are satisfied that seizing those assets would not have a detrimental effect on the global economy. Those necessary discussions are being held. The hon. Gentleman knows my emphasis, but I assure him that Europe is more united on these issues than Reform is currently.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. Last week, I hosted a Westminster Hall debate on the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Was the Foreign Secretary able to raise that matter at the G7 Foreign Ministers’ meeting? Might he commit to a further meeting with MPs to discuss the UK’s commitment to that fund?
Mr Lammy
We were able to discuss Gaza and to link that to a broader discussion on development spend and our commitment to Gaza. My hon Friend will know that the United Kingdom supports the Palestinian Authority and the necessary reforms that they need to make. I assure him that I, or indeed the Minister for the Middle East, will meet and discuss these issues further.
Israeli-Palestinian Peace: International Fund
Steve Yemm Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day 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
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian
peace.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. One of the most violent cycles of Israeli-Palestinian conflict in history, the largest since 1973, has drawn to a halt and it is now critical that we redouble our efforts to make this a lasting peace. The atrocities and massive loss of life we have seen on and since 7 October cannot happen again. We must do all we can to prevent that, and innocent civilians must be allowed to live their lives without fear.
The recent news has been packed with talk of various reconstruction plans and Government summits, but the current debate is neglected and a vital pathway to peace—that is, the involvement of Israeli and Palestinian civil society. The international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace is at its core an initiative designed to give agency to those often overlooked grassroots communities of Israel and Palestine. It plans to mobilise international investment in regional peacebuilding projects and, in doing so, will tackle unaddressed drivers of this terrible conflict. That is why the Government’s commitment to the fund has been such a groundbreaking move and why our continued support will be critical.
Political discussion about the conflict is often fixated on the short-term weather of the situation, day-to-day events and great tragedy in detail, but sometimes we neglect the climate, the long-term trends and initiatives that will bring us meaningfully closer to peace. Therefore, I want today’s debate, and my intention is, to shift our political priorities to longer term, to looking at how we can create the space in the hearts and minds of all affected communities to make peace a possibility.
Of course, how we accomplish that invites a great deal of discussion, particularly in the light of our Government’s necessary and timely commitment to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. In this era of more limited resources being available, we need to be especially sure that the budget we do have is going towards projects that are value for money in achieving security abroad, because security abroad means safety at home, and the British taxpayer must see those returns many times over. I invite other Members today to make the case for why the international fund could satisfy that requirement.
One great advantage of the fund is the opportunity that it presents for British leadership abroad. The Prime Minister has recently shown what Britain can look like as a leading force for good on the international stage. Seizing the initiative on civil society reconciliation in Israel and Palestine by championing the fund would be yet another demonstration of that power in a notably resource-efficient way. I hope that we have the courage to act and to keep the momentum of recent successes in the region going. As the examples of Syria and Lebanon show, political changes can occur suddenly and unexpectedly. Currently, however, these people and nations are suffering unimaginable pain and trauma. Innocent Palestinians have suffered the catastrophic loss of their loved ones, homes and livelihoods; and at the same time in Israel the images of the hostages are burned into the national consciousness, and the scars of 7 October will be felt for generations to come.
Therefore, with your permission, Mr Twigg, I ask that Members allow accounts from victims to always be heard. I personally have spoken with the families of hostages, and having witnessed such pain at first hand, I make clear my view that anyone who considers themselves to be on the side of peace should respect the testimony of innocents on both sides. This is not a zero-sum game. Reconciliation will take time, but history has told us that it is the only route to a lasting peace.
History has much to teach us in the pursuit of peace. In the 1980s and 1990s, Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine were both global symbols of intercommunal violence, but today they look very different from each other. The enduring relief that the Good Friday agreement brought to the people of Northern Ireland has sadly not been shared in Israel and Palestine. There are many explanations for those differing outcomes that I am sure other Members will draw attention to, but I will note that although negotiations on the make-up of the middle east often began and stayed at the level of Presidents, Prime Ministers and leaders, the International Fund for Ireland ensured that as many people as possible were given a seat at the table and a stake in the future.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is talking very eloquently about history and the need for grassroots history to be reflected. Does he agree that there has been a strong history of co-operation and co-operatives in the middle east? Is he aware of the fact that the British Co-operative Group has been working hard, with the Co-operative party, on tangible measures to support peace and economic development, including the Wahat al-Salam/Neve Shalom peace village? Do we need to see more of these initiatives in the future, and can the fund be a way of achieving that?
Steve Yemm
I agree that co-operatives and co-operation are incredibly important with regard to this fund and that we lose sight at our peril of the value of any civil society actors, including co-operatives. We recall that the fund in Northern Ireland gave everybody a seat at the table, a say in their future. The International Fund for Ireland may well have been the great unsung hero of the peace process. We therefore have in recent memory living proof that a plan for civil society reconciliation, backed by an international fund, can succeed where high-level talks may fail.
In my opinion, no one is more fit for this task than the Labour Government. Our party has a long and storied history in peacemaking, Northern Ireland being just one example of that. Equally, I am eager that we build a consensus on the fund across the House.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr Campbell
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. I just have a word of caution for him on the comparison between the middle east and Northern Ireland. Yes, the International Fund for Ireland made a difference, but the scale of the schism in the middle east caused by 7 October and the scale of the rebuild that will be required in Gaza are such that a fund many times greater than the IFI will be needed to make any meaningful difference in the middle east.
Steve Yemm
I very much agree that we need to address the scale of the issue—certainly. That is why it is very important that we build consensus on this issue across the House, and I welcome contributions from Members of all parties who are genuinely interested in finding a resolution.
Democracy is one of the strongest tools that we have in the quest for peace, not just in ensuring that our Government do their part, but in giving disenfranchised people a say in their future. We saw that clearly in Ireland, where the promise that people could express their political desires and views with a ballot in their hand instead of a rifle was key to tackling violent extremism.
I have personally engaged with Israel’s democratic tradition in my recent meetings with Yair Golan, the leader of the opposition Democrats party. He is an inspiring man who has put his life on the line, and he has been a clear and consistent voice for peace and security. I also welcome Israel’s continued engagement with the UK, but democracy will not be built and maintained unless there is a strong coalition of ordinary people and communities to safeguard it. Peacebuilding is about not just summits and large state initiatives, but the day-to-day work of people on the ground doing their utmost to set the conditions for the ending of hostilities.
We know that the Government are ultimately interested in peace in the middle east and are taking a long-term view to achieve that end. We have seen momentum build among G7 countries behind an international fund. I want to be clear that that is the crux of today’s debate. This is not about politicking, theatre or gestures. I secured the debate because I am genuinely interested in finding long-term solutions and achieving the best outcomes in the light of the realities that we face. The UK has the opportunity to take action and provide leadership. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to the fund to date and I am confident that we can build on that in the immediate future. As I draw my speech to a close, I invite Members on both sides of the House to use this opportunity to make suggestions to the Minister about how the Government and the Foreign Office might move this crucial initiative forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Steve Yemm
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed meaningfully in the spirit of today’s discussion, with a genuine commitment to peace at heart. Very few conflicts inspire stronger opinions and more polarised views than the ones we have discussed today, and I am pleased that so many Members have moved beyond talking points and shared their sincere views on how an international fund could improve the lives of everyone in Israel and the Palestinian territories. I hope that the Minister will meet again with MPs to discuss our future commitment to the fund. I hope that he will encourage the Foreign Secretary to raise the matter at the G7, building on the commitment made last year, with the aim of co-ordinating and institutionalising the UK Government’s support for this work.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Gaza
Steve Yemm Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Catherine West
The hon. Member is quite right to describe what feels like a hopeless situation, but I would remind him that over the last few weeks we have seen some rays of sunlight and a few bits of hope as—hopefully—less violence is being perpetrated and more people are going back to their homes. However, he is right to push the Government and to ask what more can be done, and that includes visits to the region to speak to the interlocutors I have mentioned and to keep pushing for peace.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Of course, many of us in this House want to see progress towards a permanent two-state solution following the current ceasefire and hostage deal. In December, the Prime Minister announced that the Foreign Secretary would be convening a meeting of partners to support civil society in both Israel and Palestine. What update can the Minister provide to the House on how the UK plans to support the international forum for Israeli-Palestinian peace?
Catherine West
In the short term, Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza will be phased—all parties have agreed to that—but in time we must see the occupation end, as confidence is rebuilt in Gaza and Israel. The Palestinian Authority should play a key role in the future governance and security of Gaza. For the deal to work, we need all parties to co-operate, including on future security arrangements that protect both Israelis and Palestinians and allow the safe distribution of aid, in the vision of the two-state solution.
UK-US Bilateral Relationship
Steve Yemm Excerpts(1 month, 3 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
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing this debate, and I look forward to visiting his constituency in a couple of weeks for a short holiday during recess.
Like the UK, the USA recently voted for decisive change. I heartily congratulate President Trump on his election. People here in the UK and across the Atlantic have been feeling the impact of low economic growth, with a decline in productivity and GDP per capita for many years. From Mansfield, Massachusetts to my constituency of Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, people are feeling the impact in their pockets. They know how tough things are out there for their families. The recent changes in both Governments are clearly a response to the frustration felt by both electorates, and it is therefore in both our countries’ interests to work together to deal with the issue.
Despite many attempts to highlight the differences between the two Administrations, we have a great deal in common. Both Governments have made much of their agenda for growth: the US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said that an increase in GDP should be seen as a key performance indicator of the Trump presidency, while here at home my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has also made it clear that economic growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission, a message reiterated through announcements in the past week. We all understand that, primarily, a Government must ensure the economic security of the electorate and give them confidence that they will be better off. However, to earn the right even to be heard on the crucial issue of the economy, parties—in opposition or in government—must prove beyond doubt that they can also ensure the safety and security of the nation.
Here in the UK we have been steadily increasing our defence spending as a share of GDP over the last 10 years. It is currently at just over 2.3%, higher than the NATO target and higher than most other NATO countries. The new Administration in the United States want NATO allies to do more, and I agree that we must. We live in an increasingly dangerous world, and it is right that we and our European allies are asked to do, and do, more. Only yesterday the Prime Minister was in Brussels urging our European neighbours to spend more on defence and to step up and shoulder more of the burden.
We underestimate the threat of Vladimir Putin and Russia at our peril. The Government must go further, with an aspiration to spend 2.5% and beyond on defence as soon as possible. That alignment of priorities should be seen as an opportunity for us here in the UK. It is an opportunity for the UK to be the bridge between US and our European neighbours and, most importantly, NATO. We can take the case to the United States by jointly demonstrating our unshakable commitment to the alliance through our contributions to defence spending. Britain must take the lead on that agenda.
As a former chief executive officer in the United States and as someone who spent many years there in Massachusetts and California, I wholeheartedly support the Government’s efforts to work more closely with the new US Administration. The special relationship is paramount to the international diplomatic network. Both Administrations share a renewed confidence from their electorate based upon the common agendas that I have outlined, and it is on those agendas that we must build a much stronger relationship with the United States going forward.
Oral Answers to Questions
Steve Yemm Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Dodds
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important question. Many displaced people have very few of the clothes and belongings that they desperately need, particularly given that the threat of winter and much worse weather is coming speedily down the track. The Government have been discussing the issue with many of our partners.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Hamish Falconer
I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer. I will also write to him with further details of what we will do.
British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations
Steve Yemm Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I have to say that such a senior Member of the House of Commons should just check his facts a little bit more closely. Mauritius is one of only two countries in Africa that has not participated in China’s belt and road. Mauritius is an ally of India, not China.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
This Government have committed to a reset of the UK’s relationship with the global south. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that putting this issue to bed will help neutralise the charge that the UK plays by double standards where international law is concerned?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Some would argue that the International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 2019 was only advisory and that the UN General Assembly resolution of 22 May 2019 was not binding, but he will recognise that many of our closest allies voted against us on that occasion. It is important that we are a country that upholds the rule of law. I am called to come to this Dispatch Box to make the case for standing with Ukraine and for international humanitarian law. For all those reasons, we must be a country that upholds the rules-based order.