Oral Answers to Questions
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Elmore
We of course support voluntary human rights due diligence by businesses, as recommended in the UN’s “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”. As I mentioned in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), in the Government’s review on responsible business conduct, those will be some of the options that we take forward.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
We work closely with our international partners to deter and disrupt those responsible for malicious cyber-activity. To date, 42 international partners have supported UK activity to expose cyber-threats, and 74 countries are members of the counter ransomware initiative, led by the UK. In addition, 27 counties have publicly endorsed the UK and France’s Pall Mall code of practice, which aims to tackle the proliferation of cyber-intrusion tools.
Uma Kumaran
The Minister will remember that when the Russia-backed cyber-crime network Lockbit was smashed in 2024, it was the direct result of intensive collaboration between the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States. They worked together to defend Europe from Russia’s hybrid attacks, which seek to weaken our role in the world. Is that not a reminder that we are all safer, on both sides of the Atlantic, when we work together, and that we should never forget where the real threats to our national security come from?
Stephen Doughty
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks. Indeed, they echo what we heard this morning from the Speaker of the US House of Representatives about working together as close allies and across NATO. It is good to welcome guests in Parliament today from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, too.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. As is evidenced by the 2024 Lockbit and 2025 Media Land sanctions packages, the UK works closely with key partners, and remains committed to using all available tools to defend against cyber-threats. Our co-ordination with Australia, the United States and other allies demonstrates to adversaries that we will not tolerate assaults on our public and private institutions and our democracies.
Iran
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member is right to condemn the horror and brutality that we have seen. We are talking to other countries about what can be done through access to Starlink, for example, to restore some form of communications. We are also talking to our allies about what further sanctions, additional pressure and other measures can be applied. Clearly, for the reasons that I set out in the statement, the future of Iran is for the Iranian people to decide, but let us be clear: we need to see fundamental change and an Iran that does not repress its people so brutally but believes in the opportunities of its people for the future. That is not what we are seeing now.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The hope on seeing the Iranian people fighting back for their freedom has turned to horror as we see the images of the body bags piled up. Over the weekend, anxious constituents have contacted me because they are unable to contact their friends and family after the regime’s imposed internet blackout. The regime is using that as a weapon to enforce silence so that the world cannot bear witness to the horror and slaughter of its own innocent citizens. Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that the British Government are putting the strongest possible pressure on Iran’s regime for its appalling human rights violations and the oppression of the Iranian people, and reaffirm Britain’s steadfast support for the Iranian people in their fight for democracy?
Yvette Cooper
I can confirm that we are continuing to raise our total condemnation of what is happening through every possible avenue—directly with the Iranian regime, but also through the different international forums—as the horrors that emerge with each day become more deeply disturbing and troubling. That is why it is so important for the international community to come together and speak with one voice.
Budget Resolutions
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I commend the Chancellor on her statement, which sets out that this Labour Government are committed to building a stronger, more secure economy, to protecting and investing in our NHS, to reducing the national debt, and to taking measures to drive down the cost of living. My constituents in Stratford and Bow will welcome so many of the measures that the Chancellor has announced today—not least the measures on investment in our energy security, which will bring bills down, and on free apprentice training for small businesses. Some 6,500 small and medium-sized enterprises in Stratford and Bow can take that up. We also have an increase in the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds, an increase in the living wage, a renewed commitment to Ukraine, and the wealthiest paying their fair share.
I will speak in particular on the important decision to abolish the Tories’ two-child benefit cap. That delivers on our defining moral mission, which is to cut child poverty. The Chancellor today set that mission out in her statement with clarity and conviction, and with reference to Labour values. Appalling rates of child poverty in communities across our country are a moral stain that should shame every Member of this House. The British public want us to bring down child poverty, but they also want the return of a social contract, in which each of us asks what we can do for our country or state, not what our state can do for us.
Child poverty continues to blight our communities in Stratford and Bow. Whether we are talking about Labour’s breakfast clubs, the free school meals provided by the Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, or the Chancellor’s extensive package today, it is Labour politicians who are leading the way, governing according to our values, and unpicking years of devastating Tory austerity.
In east London, our landscape has changed dramatically over the past two decades. The Olympic legacy has made east London the best part of the UK for social mobility and opportunities for young people. For the next generation of children growing up in Stratford and Bow, their background will not hinder their opportunity to succeed or excel. As a proud east Londoner by birth, I have seen that at first hand, and I know what the promise of London means to families like mine. There are more opportunities, but that does not negate the fact that we have some of the highest levels of children growing up in poverty.
Tragically, almost half of the children in Stratford and Bow are growing up in poverty. All the evidence shows that that experience produces poorer educational outcomes, physical and mental health challenges, shorter life expectancy, higher rates of infant mortality and childhood illness—the list goes on. Shamefully, that problem grew under the last Tory Government. The previous Parliament was the first on record during which living standards fell, and the Tories should be ashamed that that was their legacy. We will never forget that it was the working people in Britain who suffered the most from the Conservatives’ fiscal sabotage; they put their friends and profits before the British people. My constituents are still paying the price in their bills, their mortgages and their rents, all of which soared, while they worked harder than ever to battle the cost of living.
Let me put a human face to this damning failure. I received an email from a constituent, who said:
“I want to do right by my son and provide him the stability, care, and life he deserves. But right now I feel like I’m drowning, despite trying my hardest.”
I have read countless emails like that, and I have heard many more stories to that effect during my constituency surgeries. It bears repeating: the last Parliament was the first on record in which living standards fell. This is the legacy that we inherited. Families trying their very hardest are still floundering, still drowning.
Every child deserves safety and stability, which is why I am proud to see this Government act so decisively in abolishing the two-child benefit cap. It is a step that will make a huge difference to some of the most vulnerable families in my constituency. It will deliver security and stability to our very youngest citizens, regardless of the shape of their families, giving them the best start in life, and ensuring that they grow up in a Britain that cares for them, and to which, in time, they will contribute their talents.
When it comes to tackling insecurity, there is so much that this Government are already doing. There is so much that we have achieved in our first year in office—on employment rights, on renters’ rights, and in our schools—which is already transforming the lives of working people in Stratford and Bow. Now we are going further, following the evidence and introducing the single most cost-effective intervention for the benefit of our country’s most vulnerable children. No child should grow up in poverty. That is the resolve of this Labour Government, who are showing serious leadership. This is a decisive departure from the austerity and doom of Budgets past, and a rebuke to the seductive sophistry of populists on the right and the left—those who believe that we can balance the books on blame, and those who ignore the financial market, economists and experts at their peril. The populists’ false promises of hope are based on the Willy Wonka school of imagination, not rooted in financial reality or financial literacy. We have seen this before, in the disastrous Truss Budget. If it was left to Farage or the Greens, we would be right back there, and no amount of hypnosis can make the British public forget that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady should refer to colleagues not by name, but by constituency. She will, perhaps, think carefully when referring to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage).
Uma Kumaran
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Once more, the challenge of delivering for Britain falls to the party of working people, the Labour party. This Budget is a Labour Budget. It will cut waiting lists, tackle the national debt, prioritise cost of living pressures, and put working people first. On behalf of the 4,470 children and their families in my constituency who will be helped by the lifting of the two-child benefit cap, I thank the Chancellor for the measures she has announced today, and I am very proud to support this Budget.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady raises a very good point, which I will come on to shortly.
All of this points to the fact that, let us be honest, this is not actually a Budget about growth. I only left the Chamber for half an hour to have a cup of tea, and all the speeches that I have heard from those on the other side of the House—the “far left” side, or whatever it might be—have been about redistribution. They have all been about how pleased Labour Members are at the redistribution that is going on. That is fine, but I wish their Front Benchers would be honest about what they are trying to do, because they are sacrificing the prospect of future growth for the economy in order to tick the box on Labour Members’ political demands about redistribution. That is fine, and we have been here before. As hon. Members have said, we have been through most of these scenarios before. I am only just old enough to remember, but it happened in the 1970s. That was when we last had an openly redistributive Government—forget Tony Blair, because he was not about that—and we saw what happened to growth as a result.
To me, four things were broadly missing from this Budget. First, there very obviously is no governing philosophy of the political economy that any of us can discern. There is no plan or strategy. There is maths, there are inputs and outputs, and there is political box-ticking, but there is no sense of what kind of economy we are trying to build. There was a nod towards it in the desire to review the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts, but that is really about trying to keep the lobby groups in the City happy. There is no plan to build an energetic economy.
Secondly, as has been said by a number of Opposition Members, there is no comprehension of how this Government—and I have to say, sadly, previous Governments—have damaged the return on risk. A number of Members have said that capitalism relies on risk. People go out there to invest, to risk their own money and to buy businesses, and they do that calculating the return they are going to get. If we continue to tax that return, to regulate that return and to make that return less attractive, fewer and fewer people will take that risk. If we want a scale-up economy that takes advantage of the scientific and technological inventions that we are so good at producing, we have to reduce the impositions we put on risk and make it worth while.
Thirdly, we did not have any talk about frictional taxes. The Chancellor was trumpeting growth this year, but the only reason we had a bump in growth this year was the closing of the stamp duty window, when people rushed—
Kit Malthouse
I will not give way, because I am running out of time. People rushed to fill the void, and we saw a bump in growth in the first half of the year, but since then it has been tailing off. We have to focus on the fact that frictional taxes do enormous damage.
Finally, we are at the bottom of an ellipse in human achievement, particularly in this country. If we do not get capitalism right in the UK to take advantage of that, as we did during the Victorian era, we will not build wealth for the centuries of the future, and we or our children will not live off the profits of this period.
Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(2 months 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
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler. Some 18 years ago I was your researcher, so it is nice that you have not shown favouritism and have called me at the end of the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents in Stratford and Bow, over 1,000 of whom signed the petition calling for this debate. That puts us in the top 10 constituencies in the country by number of signatories. Many hundreds more of my constituents have written to me about Palestine in the past few months alone, and it has consistently remained the top issue in my inbox since I was elected.
After two long and brutal years of unrelenting suffering and bombardment, the ceasefire has come as a welcome relief to millions of Palestinians. I know it is a moment that many hon. Members in this Chamber have long called for. I was in the west bank earlier this year, and I know how perilous the past two years have been for Palestinians—not just those in Gaza but those in the west bank. We speak of a ceasefire, but this weekend Israeli strikes across Gaza killed 22 Palestinians, bringing the total to over 300 Palestinians killed by Israeli strikes since the ceasefire came into force—that includes two children killed every single day.
Even during the ceasefire, Israeli authorities continue to thwart humanitarian access and block aid. As we have heard, there are devastating shortages of food, medicine and lifesaving supplies, which have spent months sitting in warehouses. We have seen Israeli authorities denying and delaying nearly a million bottles of baby formula for infants born into famine, and denying the entry of syringes needed to protect the 20% of toddlers in Gaza who have not been vaccinated against polio, measles or pneumonia. Families are facing extreme food shortages and Gaza’s health system is collapsing, leaving children without care. We have heard today how stark conditions are as winter is drawing in and tents offer little to no shelter.
Humanitarian aid should never be politicised. There is absolutely no justification for the restrictions on vital humanitarian assistance. Yet, when there are attempts to deliver such assistance, Israeli authorities claim they only block items that might have a dual use or some potential military purpose. What defence risk is there to vaccinating babies? What possible military use could there be for newborn formula? UNRWA says that enough aid to feed the entire Gazan population for three months is waiting in warehouses. It is ready to enter, yet it is still not permitted in. Earlier this year, I met the Jordanian delegation, who told me that tonnes of aid are sitting in trucks on its borders, not allowed in.
At the time of the ceasefire, UNICEF alone had 1,300 trucks sitting ready to bring in tents, nutrition, water and sanitation supplies. It also provides education and recreational kits for children: items such as balls, board games, chalk and skipping ropes—none of which have been allowed into Gaza for months. Those children are already facing the harsh and devastating consequences of war, which will live with them for their lifetimes. What military function does a game of snakes and ladders have? What possible threat is there to Israeli forces from a Palestinian child playing football?
The so-called Gaza Humanitarian Fund was a system unable—or perhaps unwilling—to distinguish between military threats and humanitarian aid, between weapons and toys. It cannot be a model for future aid delivery. Only an impartial humanitarian regime can deliver relief and dignity for the people of Gaza. As this ceasefire is consolidated and the peace plan developed, it is essential that we see unfettered access to humanitarian assistance and a recommitment to humanitarian principles. I join hon. Members across the House, including those who have spoken today, in calling on the UK Government to support the restoration of an independent and neutral humanitarian scheme capable of delivering aid safely, effectively and at scale. I echo the call to the Minister to clarify the critical objectives of ensuring that British aid charities, such as Medical Aid for Palestinians and Oxfam, can operate freely and without restrictions in Gaza, with unhindered entry for their staff and medical teams and the ability to take in humanitarian supplies.
We owe it to the Palestinian people not to look away from the devastation, but to bear witness to what has been inflicted on them. We owe it to them to bear witness to this history, to this ongoing genocide, but also to continue to ensure that Britain plays its full part in the humanitarian assistance and rebuilding of Gaza.
Conflict in Sudan
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his commitment to these issues. I can reassure him that I have been in north Africa twice in the past two weeks, and the ministerial team will continue to pay Africa the attention that it deserves. I will have to revert to him on the question of the timetable for publishing the Africa strategy.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Despite it being the largest humanitarian catastrophe on the planet, and despite the mass rape and slaughter of civilians, when it comes to Sudan, it feels like the world has taken a moral holiday. The atrocities in El Fasher were entirely foreseeable—this conflict is not new. I understand that the Foreign Secretary is leading the fight to keep Sudan on the agenda and to secure accountability for the mass atrocities in Darfur, but does the Minister agree that it is time that global leaders followed the UK’s example and showed the moral resolve, the moral courage and the leadership needed to end this deadly assault?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. It is one with which both I and the Foreign Secretary agree. As she said at the weekend, the world must do more.
Official Development Assistance Reductions
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(2 months, 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
Edward Morello
I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. Purely on a value-for-money basis, it is wiser to spend money where people are, to prevent them from getting on the road, than to try to house them here.
Migration and global instability do not begin at our borders. They begin when climate change destroys livelihoods, when wars displace families and when hunger drives desperation. Compassion and prevention are not opposites of security; they are the foundations of it.
Climate change remains the single greatest threat we face. Carbon knows no borders; it does not respect treaties or national boundaries. If we cut funding to those on the frontline of climate vulnerability, we are cutting our own future resilience. Whether that is in the Caribbean, the Sahel, the middle east or the Pacific, our partners need leadership, and Britain should be that leader.
The Government’s commitment to meet their £11.6 billion international climate finance pledge by 2026 is welcome, but it is increasingly hollow if other aid streams are being dismantled. We cannot claim climate leadership while simultaneously cutting the very funds that protect vulnerable nations from its impact and help them to decarbonise sooner. The UK has always been at its best when leading with principle and pragmatism. We led on eradicating smallpox, on fighting HIV/AIDS, on girls’ education, on tackling modern slavery and, of course, on the creation of the United Nations.
Today we must show that same moral courage. The cuts to the ODA budget are not only a betrayal of those values, they are a strategic mistake. Every pound we invest in aid saves far more in the long term, by preventing wars, stopping pandemics and reducing the need for emergency interventions. We live in a globalised society. Our economies, supply chains and security are inter- connected. Disease, conflict and climate crisis spread across borders with ease. To imagine that Britain can isolate itself from those realities is naive; if we fail to act abroad, we will pay the price at home.
I pay tribute to the humanitarian workers who continue to serve in some of the world’s most dangerous environments, and who risk their lives daily to deliver aid. They embody the best of British values, yet their work is getting harder. From Gaza to Sudan, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Ukraine, aid workers face extraordinary challenges. In 2024, one in eight people worldwide was exposed to armed conflict. Humanitarian staff have been detained, attacked and even killed, and entire operations have been halted due to insecurity. Our response to that sacrifice should not be to cut funding for their organisations—they deserve not only our gratitude but our tangible support. We must ensure that safeguards and funding are extended to humanitarian workers, who represent British values in the most fragile corners of the world.
The Government expect aid reductions to provide £500 million for defence in 2025-26, £4.8 billion in 2026-27 and £6.5 billion in 2027-28. That may satisfy Treasury spreadsheets, but it will come at the cost of lives, stability and influence. In the coming weeks, this House will debate spending priorities at the Budget. The timing of this debate could not be more important. It is a time of hardship and high costs of living for all. There are difficult decisions to be made, both domestically and abroad. But we should remember that the choices we make here ripple far beyond our own borders. They shape how the world sees us, and how safe, stable and prosperous our shared future will be.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that at a dangerous moment geopolitically, with tensions high and multilateralism facing challenges—which, as members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we are more than aware of—it is incumbent on all of us to advocate an approach that treats global co-operation, our international obligations and our defence and security as interconnected?
Edward Morello
I agree 100% with the hon. Member. The more we work with our partners, the more we can deliver. We are living in an interconnected society; there is no way we can do this alone. We must work with others, and we must show leadership in that space.
If aid spending remained at 0.5%, it would have reached £15.4 billion by 2027. Instead, it will stand at £9.2 billion, the lowest in real terms since 2012. When we retreat, Russia and China advance; when we stay silent, violence speaks for us. There can be no security without stability, and no stability without development. Development is not an add-on to security and foreign policy, but what that policy is built on.
I therefore urge the Government to reconsider the planned reductions ahead of the Budget, and to bring forward sustainable, long-term plans for funding both our defence and our diplomacy, rather than setting them in competition. I urge them to recognise that global leadership cannot be built on cuts and withdrawals, but on conviction and compassion. The world we are shaping today, through the choices we make on aid, diplomacy and climate will determine whether future generations—our children and grandchildren—inherit a planet of opportunity for all.
We must stand up for liberal values, for compassion and for the rules-based international order. Britain has always stood tall on the world stage. Our leadership has mattered. It must matter again.
Oral Answers to Questions
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
The Foreign Secretary has already been clear about the importance of a single, effective Palestinian state, which of course includes the west bank. The hon. Member has heard from me on a number of occasions about the different trading standards for both Israel itself and the occupied territories. We of course keep these questions under close review, but the whole House will appreciate that our focus now needs to be on ensuring that the ceasefire holds as we move into the 20-point plan and towards the two-state solution that we all want to see.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
We all welcome a ceasefire and the recognition of a Palestinian state, but we must now support the Palestinian people. The head of the United Nations humanitarian affairs team has said that driving through Gaza City is like
“going through the ruins of Hiroshima”.
The people of Gaza who have endured this hellish war and survived now face a humanitarian disaster. They urgently need aid, and the UK, along with many other countries, stands ready to provide it. The block to this aid, as so frequently has been the case, is the Israeli authorities. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that Israel stops blocking this urgently needed aid and humanitarian supplies, and to get them to the people who are desperately in need?
Mr Falconer
I want to update the House on this very important question. We are seeing a greater flow of aid into Gaza. That is, of course, supremely welcome, and something that we have long awaited, but it is not yet at the level we would wish to see. There are still restrictions on that aid going in, and, as the Foreign Secretary has been clear on, vital crossings remain unopened. We continue to engage with all our partners on this, and I and the Foreign Secretary will be travelling to the region this weekend to pursue that work.
Ambassador to the United States
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry
I would not quite put it like that; I think that the Executive do, in the end, make the decision—they are the Executive. However, I think that we should, as a Select Committee, have a role in this process, particularly when it comes to political appointments. It has happened before, as the right hon. Gentleman may remember, when there were political appointments to the ambassador to South Africa and to Paris—it has happened in the past. I do think, particularly when there are political appointments, that the Select Committee should have a role in that process, and we can make better decisions as a result.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr Speaker. Our Committee has a proposal that we should have a greater role in scrutinising the appointment of the US ambassador, given that they are one of the highest ranking members of the diplomatic service, and to help the Government to avoid this situation in the future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should consider our proposal seriously?
Emily Thornberry
My hon. Friend may be surprised to hear that I agree with her completely. I think that would be very wise.
Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(4 months, 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
Melanie Ward
I agree on both points. We have to remember that Qatar was asked by the international community to undertake the hugely important role that it plays in trying to bring about peace and a ceasefire through negotiations. The focus of today’s debate, however, is humanitarian access to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the ways that aid workers are increasingly being prevented from doing their job, which is to serve civilians in need.
Aid workers serve humanity. When they are prevented from doing their jobs, it is humanity that suffers. In the aftermath of the atrocities of world war two, the main bodies of international humanitarian law were drawn up—what are often called the “laws of war”. Part of their purpose is to ensure that humanitarian aid can reach those in need, and that aid workers can do their jobs safely, in line with humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I apologise for cutting my hon. Friend short; I am due to be meeting the director of the World Food Programme in Palestine shortly. Yesterday I met the ambassador for Jordan; he and his delegates told us that aid is sitting on the border in Jordan, but Israel is preventing aid that could help thousands of people from getting in. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government need to do all they can to put pressure on our United States counterparts to force Israel into allowing this aid in?
Melanie Ward
My hon. Friend knows exactly what she is talking about. I agree completely, and I ask her to convey our solidarity to the Palestine director of the World Food Programme when they meet shortly.
To state the obvious: to alleviate the suffering of a population in humanitarian need, aid workers need to be able to reach them. Too often across the world today we see aid workers being restricted from reaching people in need, something that is in violation of the laws of war. Gaza is ground zero for that.
We are all familiar with the barriers that Israel has put in place to stop aid entering Gaza. Indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), has said that creative solutions, such as floating piers, are needed to get aid into Gaza. We also know that aid drops are deeply flawed. However, the solution to getting aid into Gaza is simple—Israel must open the gates and let it in.
Middle East
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the former Prime Minister for his work on the Iran file and for the cross-party consensus that exists in the House in this area. As he knows, we work hand in glove with our French and German counterparts, in particular, and it was on that basis—the so-called E3—that we urged Iran to take us seriously, and to go back to the negotiation table with the US and let the inspectors back in. The Iranians still have an opportunity over the next 30 days, and we will of course do everything we can within the UN system to urge our Russian and Chinese friends to take seriously the solemn commitments, which we made in the 20th century and continue to back in this one, that we must stop nuclear proliferation. This is not a personal issue; it is a global issue of huge concern.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The International Association of Genocide Scholars has passed a resolution stating that
“Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide”.
I understand that the Foreign Secretary does not comment on these matters from the Dispatch Box, so I instead want to ask what action and efforts this Government are taking, alongside international partners, to ensure that evidence is collected and that matters are in hand to ensure that legal avenues can be pursued to address allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Gaza?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising that that must rightly be a matter for lawyers, but I reassure her that we do fund and support organisations on the ground in gathering evidence. That is much easier in the west bank than it currently is in Gaza. At this Dispatch Box, I have said time and again that I think it is important that the Israelis let international journalists in to monitor the situation. I think that is hugely important. Where we can, we will continue to support journalists, organisations and federations to monitor and support that work, and we of course support a lot of NGOs on the ground.