Arctic Policy Framework
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(6 days, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Uma Kumaran)
The Government are today publishing an update to the United Kingdom’s Arctic policy. This builds on the United Kingdom’s Arctic policy framework, “Looking North”. It is a response to recent developments in the region since the publication of “Looking North” in 2023 and sets out clear priorities to guide the United Kingdom’s engagement. This update reflects the Government commitment that the United Kingdom should continue to be an engaged, constructive and reliable neighbour, a partner in science and stewardship, and a steadfast ally in maintaining the stability and security on which the Arctic’s future—and our own—depends.
The update builds on strong foundations. It sets out how the United Kingdom is responding to the challenges facing the region, including the threat from Russia, climate and environmental change, the growing global interest in the region’s economic opportunities, and an increasing interconnectedness to wider global events. It also sets out how the United Kingdom, in partnership with others, will bring to bear its diplomatic engagement, science and research expertise, defence and deterrence capability, and economic interests in taking action to protect the people, climate and environment of the region, preserve security and stability, and promote shared prosperity, all of which are fundamental to both the region and the United Kingdom’s interests.
The United Kingdom will focus its engagement in the following five priority action areas:
Understanding and responding to a changing Arctic, to better inform policy by furthering our understanding of climate and environmental change, to address its causes and impacts, and draw on the United Kingdom’s polar research capabilities and expertise to drive research collaboration that recognises the value of modern science and traditional knowledge.
Enhancing security and stability, by stepping up our defence contribution to the High North, including through our NATO-first approach and investment in technology and infrastructure, in conjunction with partners, to maintain credible deterrence and warfighting readiness without seeking escalation or unduly securitising the region.
Supporting strong and effective governance, including by reaffirming our support for the Arctic Council, and championing rules-based international governance, consistent with established norms and fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Building responsible trade and economic partnerships, where the United Kingdom has expertise and capabilities to offer, while managing risks to our security, safety and environment and ensuring responsible and transparent economic activity that benefits indigenous communities and other inhabitants of the Arctic.
Strengthening resilience, to deter threats to our security and prosperity by working collaboratively to enhance our understanding of the risks that we and our partners face from this rapidly changing region and appropriate mitigations.
These priorities reflect our diverse interests and relationships with the Arctic as a region. Partnership will be key to their delivery and the Government will draw on and seek to strengthen further its relationships with our seven Arctic state allies, indigenous partners and many non-Arctic states across Europe and the Indo-Pacific, as well as the European Union, with whom we share interests in the region. As the Arctic continues to change, so we are committed to ensuring it is a secure, sustainable and prosperous region.
[HCWS382]
Falkland Islands
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Uma Kumaran)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise for the delayed submission. We respect the processes of this House, and I will ensure that that does not happen again.
With permission, I will update the House on Argentina’s escalating campaign against individuals and companies in the United Kingdom and around the world that are involved in the lawful economic development of the Falkland Islands. Let me state from the outset that the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are British. The United Kingdom has no doubt about its sovereignty over them and their surrounding maritime areas.
As the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, in conversations at the UN General Assembly, he and President Trump discussed the islanders’ clear and declared will to remain British. The Prime Minister reiterated that message to the UN General Assembly. Let me repeat what he made clear to this House yesterday:
“we will also always do whatever it takes to uphold”—[Official Report, 12 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 24.]
the will of the Falkland Islanders. The Foreign Secretary and I have reiterated this Government’s commitment to the Falkland Islanders’ right to determine their own political and economic future and livelihoods. I made that point very clear in my public statement, which was published online on 30 September, and in my subsequent meetings with members of the Legislative Assembly. I welcome Jack Ford, Chair of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly, to the Gallery today; I know that the whole House will want to show him and the Falkland Islanders our full support.
In recent weeks, we have heard inflammatory remarks from President Milei at the UN General Assembly and increasingly aggressive public statements from the Argentine Foreign Minister. The Argentine Government have threatened sanctions and warned that they will pursue criminal measures against businesses and individuals connected directly and indirectly to the Sea Lion project. The Sea Lion field lies on the Falkland Islands continental shelf. The project is lawful and regulated by the democratically elected Falkland Islands Government. Argentina has no jurisdiction over it.
Let me be absolutely clear: this Government will not stand by while Argentina uses economic coercion against the people of the Falkland Islands. We will do whatever it takes to support them. What is particularly disappointing about this is President Milei’s brazen attempt to use the people of the Falkland Islands as some sort of political prop ahead of Argentina’s elections next year. We will not allow the Falkland Islanders to be used as a tool of Argentine domestic politics.
The Government of the United Kingdom are responding in four ways. First, we have confronted Argentina directly. On 17 September, the Minister for Latin America, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), made clear our position to the Argentine ambassador and rejected the attempted application of Argentine law to the Falkland Islands. He also reaffirmed the islanders’ right to develop their natural resources. Our message is unequivocal: the measures announced by President Milei on 3 September, threatening companies and individuals for lawful commercial decisions, are economic coercion. They will not change the United Kingdom’s position or weaken our commitment to the rights and wishes of the Falkland Islanders, nor will they halt lawful economic activity. We will respond firmly and promptly to Argentine threats to apply measures beyond Argentina’s jurisdiction, which are intended to frighten businesses. Such conduct damages legal certainty and confidence in Argentina as a reliable economic partner.
Secondly, the Government are engaging with affected businesses to understand their concerns and make clear the Government’s position. The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, is having regular discussions with the Sea Lion operator and its supporting supply chain. Our message is straightforward: legitimate commercial activity in the Falkland Islands remains lawful, and the British Government stand behind those engaged in it. We are also speaking to wider UK business interests to explain the Government’s position and understand the potential consequences of Argentina’s actions.
Thirdly, I can confirm that the Business Secretary will, subject to the necessary parliamentary protocols, deploy the powers available to him under the protection of trading interests legislation against any Argentine measures that seek to influence or regulate lawful activity beyond Argentine jurisdiction. These steps will provide additional protection for UK businesses against attempts to compel them to comply with measures that Argentina is trying to enforce outside its jurisdiction. They will also demonstrate that the Government are prepared to use the available tools to defend lawful British commercial activity. We will continue to talk to businesses as the situation develops to understand how best to support their operations. Let me emphasise that this action responds to Argentina’s attempted extraterritorial application of its domestic measures.
Fourthly, we are mobilising international partners. Our diplomatic network, acting on the instruction of the Foreign Secretary, is engaging to set out what Argentina’s conduct means for international businesses, secure supply chains and predictable global commerce. We are engaging G7 and G20 partners and Governments across Europe, the Americas and beyond. We urge countries that value open markets, legal certainty and stable trading relationships to stand against the intimidation of companies undertaking lawful business.
Finally, I say to this House, and the Government of Argentina, that the United Kingdom will prepare additional measures if this situation persists. They will be legal, proportionate and, let me assure the House, robust. The United Kingdom never sought this confrontation with the Argentinian Government, and less so with the Argentinian people. We do not want to see wider implications for our two countries. Let us not forget the reconciliation and progress we have seen since the events of 1982. Next year, we will mark 45 years since British forces liberated the Falkland Islands. For some of those veterans who fought in that conflict, this may be one of the last major anniversaries they see. To mark the occasion, celebrate the liberation and remember all those who paid the ultimate price for the freedom of the Falkland Islands—they should never be forgotten—today I can announce that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, in partnership with the Ministry of Defence, will support commemorations on the islands and here in the United Kingdom.
There should be no doubt that the Government will defend the Falkland Islanders from bullying and threats, and defend their right to self-determination. Every part of this response is being developed in close co-ordination with the democratically elected Falkland Islands Government. The islanders’ interests and wishes remain at its heart. The principle at stake is simple: the Falkland Islanders have the right to determine their own future. In the 2013 referendum, 99.8% of those voting, on a turnout of 92%, chose for the Falkland Islands to remain a British overseas territory. Their wishes could not have been clearer. The United Kingdom will remain open to dialogue and practical co-operation with Argentina, where that benefits both countries and our peoples. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) would do well to listen to my statement. Progress must rest on international law and respect for the rights and wishes of the Falkland Islanders. Firmness in defending those principles is entirely consistent with keeping the door open to diplomacy and dialogue.
On 28 September, the Government of Argentina formally notified the United Kingdom that they were commencing arbitration proceedings under annex VII of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, or UNCLOS. Argentina demanded that the United Kingdom prevent hydrocarbon activity in the North Falkland basin in relation to the Sea Lion project. Argentina threatened to seek provisional measures from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. I can confirm that the UK Government’s intention is to engage with this process; that is consistent with our long-standing position in respect of international courts and tribunals. On Sunday 11 October, the British embassy in Buenos Aires delivered our formal response to Argentina’s notification. That response sets out clearly the United Kingdom’s position. The House will understand that while legal proceedings are contemplated or under way, I will not provide a running commentary, but I assure Members that we will defend the interests of the Falkland Islanders and the United Kingdom robustly.
At the same time, I want to be clear about what Argentina’s action does not do. Its notification does not constitute a judgment by an international court or tribunal. It does not invalidate licences issued by the Falkland Islands Government. It does not alter the islands’ regulatory authority, and it does not require lawful activity on hydrocarbons development to cease.
His Majesty’s Government stand shoulder to shoulder with the Falkland Islanders. We are in no doubt about their sovereignty. We will defend their security, their livelihoods and their right to determine their own future, while remaining ready to resolve differences with Argentina through diplomacy, dialogue and international law. The United Kingdom’s resolve is absolute. I commend this statement to the House.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, though it was somewhat belated. Let me start by welcoming Jack Ford, Chair of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly, to the Gallery.
Yesterday marked 44 years since the Falklands Task Force victory parade, in which more than 300,000 people lined London’s streets to honour those who liberated the islands. Their sacrifice reminds us of our enduring responsibility to defend the Falkland Islanders’ freedom and right to self-determination. Argentina’s increasingly hostile rhetoric and threats towards the islands, their people and their economic interests are wholly unacceptable. The islanders have overwhelmingly expressed their wish to remain British. No amount of intimidation or economic coercion from Buenos Aires will change that.
The Falkland Islanders deserve more than words of reassurance. They deserve to know that the British Government will stand firmly behind them, protect their interests and defend their right to determine their own future, so I welcome reports that the Foreign Secretary has signed off on the next steps for Sea Lion. The islanders have every right to develop their natural resources, but I am a little perplexed, because in Energy questions today, Ministers suggested that this was not a decision for the British Government. Can the Minister clarify the Foreign Secretary’s role, precisely what he has authorised, and whether further decisions are required? In fact, was the Energy Secretary even consulted? If the Foreign Secretary can support Sea Lion in the south Atlantic, why are the Government still leaving Rosebank and Jackdaw in the North sea waiting?
But back to the Falkland Islands. We welcome the measures outlined today, but approval alone will not protect those involved from Argentina’s threats. British nationals and businesses operating under licences issued by the Falkland Islands Government should not face intimidation or threats of legal action. There are some questions that need answers and clarity today. The Minister has announced the Government’s intention to extend the protection of trading interests measures to cover Argentina. What will that mean in practice for companies and individuals facing Argentine legal action, and what risks will remain? Can she confirm reports that the Government have approached Interpol, and what assurances have they received that politically motivated requests will be rejected? Has the FCDO sought assurances from international partners that British citizens will not face arrest or detention when travelling abroad? What practical legal, consular and travel support is being offered to those affected, and how will the Government help companies to resist attempts to disrupt the project’s financing and supply chains?
What direct support is being provided to the Falkland Islands Government to ensure that development can proceed without interference, because alongside these protections, there must be consequences if Argentina continues to escalate its threats? Has the Minister examined targeted sanctions, or other proportionate diplomatic and economic restrictions? That must also inform our wider economic relationship. President Milei cannot simultaneously threaten British interests while expecting Britain to facilitate closer economic co-operation.
Argentina has applied to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), has made clear that Britain should be prepared to oppose that application if Argentina continues to threaten peace and stability in the south Atlantic. Are the Government prepared to use Britain’s position in the CPTPP to make it clear that such behaviour carries consequences?
These developments underline a wider point about Britain’s standing in the world. When Britain appears unwilling or unable to defend its interests, it risks encouraging those who would seek to challenge them. That is why we Opposition Members are committed to fully costed plans to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030. What discussions has the Minister had with the Defence Secretary about the resilience of Britain’s military presence in the south Atlantic, and are any additional measures being considered?
Britain must bring together its diplomatic, economic and military strength to defend its interests and stand up to those who seek to intimidate us. Argentina should be working to strengthen its own economy, rather than threatening the livelihoods of the Falkland Islanders. There can be no question of bargaining away their democratic rights or their future. I will end where I began: the Falkland Islanders have chosen to remain British. We on the Opposition Benches will always stand with them and defend their fundamental right to self-determination.
Uma Kumaran
I thank the right hon. Lady for the important points she has raised. I will take some of them in turn. Let me be clear, as the Prime Minister was in the House yesterday, that this Government will defend the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination relentlessly. The Falkland Islands are a British overseas territory, and will remain so for as long as the islanders wish. We have made it clear to Argentina that attempts to obstruct lawful economic activity in the Falkland Islands are not an act of responsible international engagement. They damage legal certainty and raise serious questions about Argentina’s reliability as an economic partner.
The right hon. Member asked questions about PTI and CPTPP. We do not speculate on possible future sanctions or designations, but we will continue to consider all appropriate measures, in accordance with our legal framework and wider policy objectives. The UK does not comment publicly on CPTPP accession discussions. Our focus now is on the merit of an application, to maintain the strongest agreement, though Argentina’s behaviour does raise very serious questions about its reliability as a partner for the United Kingdom.
On the question of UNCLOS, the House will understand that while legal proceedings are contemplated or under way, I will not provide a running commentary.
On defence readiness, the Ministry of Defence is confident that our military presence is at the appropriate level to defend the islands, and that posture is kept under constant review. Indeed, I have had conversations with the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, who is present today. Since 1982, the United Kingdom has maintained a continuous military presence on and around the Falkland Islands. HMS Medway is currently patrolling the south Atlantic. The current tranche 1 Typhoons will be replaced with more modern tranche 2 aircraft in 2027, alongside significant investment to ensure that the Typhoon remains at the cutting edge of capability. Those conversations are ongoing.
In relation to climate and natural resources, the shadow Minister will understand the core tenet of self-determination and the need to ensure that the Falkland Islanders themselves and their Government can make decisions to do with their natural resources.
Finally, on the question of what we are doing to give businesses assurance, the Government continue to support businesses affected by Argentina’s actions. We are engaging closely with companies involved in the Sea Lion project and its supporting supply chain. My message to those companies is straightforward: their activity is lawful, and the British Government stand unequivocally behind them. As I set out in my statement, the Business Secretary is prepared, subject to the necessary parliamentary processes, to deploy powers under the protection of trading interests legislation against any Argentine measures that seek to influence or regulate lawful activity taking place outside Argentine jurisdiction. The process is straightforward and would provide additional protection to UK businesses facing pressure as a result of Argentina’s actions.
This House has long had a consensus that we stand together with the people of the Falkland Islands, who, as we all know, are feeling quite scared about these measures. They are feeling very uncertain about their future. It is our job as a Parliament to stand together—[Interruption.] I have met and spoken with a number of Falkland Islanders; they are very worried, and they are scared. It is our job to offer them reassurance, stand together and show them that the United Kingdom stands full sail behind them.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to her place. My constituents will be really pleased to hear her announcements on the commemoration events, and I look forward to taking part in those in my constituency. Does she agree that the action we are taking today is a clear indication of this Labour Government’s position that if Argentina continues to threaten the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination, we will prepare additional measures, no matter what threats or economic coercion Argentina carries out against the Falkland Islanders?
Uma Kumaran
I thank my hon. Friend for that question; I know she has spoken passionately about these matters. Let me be very clear: the United Kingdom Government will continue to do all that is necessary to protect the Falkland Islanders and the Government of the Falkland Islands. As I said, next year is the 45th anniversary of the conflict. We in the FCDO are very much looking forward to working with the Ministry of Defence on the commemoration and celebratory events around Falkland 45.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to Falkland Islands sovereignty and the islanders’ right to self-determination.
In the light of President Milei’s escalating campaign, I think a little history may be in order. The Falkland Islands were first sighted by English navigators in 1592, claimed by Britain in 1765 and continuously settled since 1833, and some Falkland Islands families can trace their roots back nine or even 10 generations. Of course, there is a particular irony in Argentina’s claims of colonial injustice. Of the two countries in this dispute, it was only Argentina that systematically dispossessed indigenous peoples of their homes and homelands. Argentina’s sovereignty claim rests substantially on its asserted inheritance of the Spanish empire, whose imperial ambitions were sanctioned by a 15th-century Pope and the treaty of Tordesillas. The colonial history is rather more complicated than the Government of Argentina perhaps like to acknowledge or remember, which is precisely why self-determination matters so much.
In 2013, I was in Stanley to witness the referendum in which 99.8% of islanders voted to remain British. They spoke for themselves as a self-governing, self-determining, distinct and identifiable people, yet President Milei now seeks to use UNCLOS arbitration to deny the islanders of economic sovereignty and the right to shape their own future. That is neo-colonialism dressed up as anti-colonialism.
I have three questions for the Minister. Will Britain challenge any attempt to use UNCLOS to determine territorial sovereignty? If she is not willing to give an express account of the CPTPP negotiations, can she at least acknowledge that the Auckland principles that underpin the CPTPP are inconsistent with Argentina’s desire to undermine the islanders’ right to develop their own economy? Finally, what concrete measures will this Government take to ensure that Argentina’s threats do not deter investment in the islands?
Uma Kumaran
The hon. Member knows a lot about this matter; indeed, I believe he is a professor who specialises in some of these areas, so I thank him for the brief history lesson that he has treated us to today. The answer to his question on UNCLOS is yes. On CPTPP, we expect good practices from all our international partners. I have made very clear our expectations of the Government of Argentina, and how they are behaving at the moment is not in line with what we would expect.
On the third point, we are expecting all partners to get around the table. Diplomacy and dialogue remain a very important part of moving this forward. We have been very clear that we will engage with this process in full. On diplomacy, dialogue and matters of international law, the United Kingdom will play its full part.
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her support for the upcoming 45th anniversary of some pretty heroic action from the UK armed forces—it involved Buster Brown, who took me through marine training many, many years ago. Does she agree that the UK Government will not cower in any way, shape or form or be intimidated by any aggressive or threatening language from Argentina?
Uma Kumaran
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that question. The answer is an unequivocal yes.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I declare an interest: I visited the Falklands a number of months ago as a trustee of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I welcome the Minister to her position, and I entirely endorse the sentiment of her statement, which maintains that the Falklands must remain British. I welcome the Chair of the Legislative Assembly to the Gallery today.
We must match diplomacy with military deterrence. When I visited the islands, I was most concerned that permanent refuelling capability for our military assets there was based elsewhere. I do not expect the Minister to give a detailed answer—although I see that the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry is next to her—but can she ensure that permanent refuelling capability for the Typhoons is put back on the islands if it has not been already?
Uma Kumaran
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important question. You could see the Defence Minister explaining to me that he will have some conversations with you about that. We do not comment on operational matters, but we are moving our capabilities and assets in the area.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind the Minister and all colleagues that they should not say “you” and “your”. They must speak through the Chair. I was not responsible for the question.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I spent an hour with one of my constituents, James, last week, who was shot in the face in the Falklands war, and I have met him many times to work on these issues in recent months. I welcome Jack Ford, who is in the Gallery, and I give my fullest, strongest backing to what the Minister has said today.
I want to raise two things. First, how are discussions with our allies in the Latin American region—Uruguay and Chile in particular—going, and will the Minister ensure that they are a focus of the talks she is having? Secondly, I want to say this as gently as possible, but we must find a way to assert our sovereignty against what are often spurious claims against us in international courts that basically allow our foes to challenge sovereignty. We have seen it recently, and we are seeing it again now.
Uma Kumaran
My hon. Friend has spent many years engaged in these matters. On conversations with partners in LATAM, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for LATAM is in regular discussion with friends and allies in the region. They are important partners on this matter, particularly in providing support for the Falkland Islands. On the matter of sovereignty, the United Kingdom Government are in no doubt about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islanders and we will follow their wish at every turn.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. While we in Reform welcome the Minister’s commitment to allowing the Falkland Islanders to determine their own governance, can she confirm that as a nation we would be in a position militarily to defend the Falkland Islands if ever called on to do so by the Falkland Islanders, when we could not even get a single warship to the strait of Hormuz?
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister was asked specifically about what the Foreign Secretary had signed off, so will she confirm who granted consent under the Offshore Minerals Ordinance 1994? What does she say to the people of Aberdeen who have been told that they cannot drill in order to protect against global climate change, while 8,000 miles away we can drill? That is incongruent and does not make sense.
Uma Kumaran
I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a very different situation. The UK oil and gas licensing policy does not apply in the Falkland Islands. I have made it very clear that the Falkland Islanders’ right to develop their natural resources is in line with their self-determination. When deciding whether to grant consent for new hydrocarbon licences in the Falkland Islands, the Secretary of State acts in accordance with the applicable Falkland Islands legislation. We do not comment on individual licences. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to bring domestic politics into a matter on which this House has long had consensus—the sovereignty and self-determination rights of the Falkland Islanders.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I welcome the Minister to her place. I also welcome her restating Britain’s commitment to the fact that the Falkland Islands are British as long as the people of the Falklands wish to remain so. The Minister has said that Argentina has threatened to seek provisional measures through the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. President Trump, an ally of the Argentinian President, has spoken in support of Argentina’s claim and has recently sanctioned the International Criminal Court. What are the Government doing to ensure that no pressure is brought to bear on international tribunals and that the rule of law is protected?
Uma Kumaran
I thank the hon. Member for his important question. As the Prime Minister told the House yesterday and the UN General Assembly in New York, the Falkland Islands were a matter of discussion with President Trump, and the clear and declared will of the Falkland Islanders to remain British was part of that conversation. The United States is our closest ally. We talk to it about a range of issues. This remains one of the issues that we talk about. Our officials remain in constant communication on matters to do with the international law and courts. We are in constant discussion on this matter and I can write to him further if he would like a fuller answer.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
António Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, will retire in December. One of the leading candidates to replace him is a senior Argentinian ambassador, Rafael Grossi. Is it the UK’s position that it is supporting the Argentinians in seeking this important role? If not, does the Minister agree that the Costa Rican and the two Ecuadorian candidates should also be disqualified should they have made public statements supporting Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands?
Uma Kumaran
The right hon. Gentleman asks a pertinent question, but he will know that the UK Government do not comment on UNSG processes from the Dispatch Box.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Our overseas territory, which voted to remain British and where our brave troops fought and died for the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination, is once again being put in jeopardy because a warmongering Argentinian Government are seeking to rally their base to hide their domestic failures and failing economy. Many international companies are being deterred from investing in that region because of the noise that has been created. What more can this Government do to ensure that international companies that want to invest can do so with confidence?
Uma Kumaran
I assure the hon. Member that matters of sovereignty are not in jeopardy. I have been very clear in my statement today that the United Kingdom stands resolute behind the Falkland Islanders. Conversations with businesses are ongoing and letters of comfort have been issued to businesses where we deem it necessary that they receive those letters.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As I am sure the Minister is aware, as well as applying to join the CPTPP, the Argentinians are in the final stage of accession to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Membership of that organisation brings with it significant benefits in terms of the risk premium attached to national debt, which could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars—if not billions—to Argentina. However, membership requires consensus from existing members that a country is allowed to join. Does the Minister agree that the conduct of Argentina in this regard is unlikely to engender the kind of consensus needed for it to accede to the OECD?
Uma Kumaran
I thank the right hon. Member for his eloquent question. We will continue to consider all options. Indeed, I have been clear in my statement that the behaviour of the Argentine Government is not what we would expect. I hope that they will reflect on that.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Is it any surprise that President Milei cited the United Nations convention on the law of the sea annex VII in defence of his claim in relation to the sea lion field, when this Government are using article 298 to defend their position in relation to the Chagos islands? On the subject of UNCLOS, will the Minister use its strictures regarding freedom of navigation to ensure any thoughts that Argentina might have of frustrating the upcoming sea route between Punta Arenas and Stanley are given short shrift?
Uma Kumaran
The House will understand that while legal proceedings are contemplated or under way, I will not provide a running commentary. The UK’s established position is that provisional measures ordered under the applicable international legal framework are binding on the parties, and that the UK complies with its international obligations. On the matters raised in relation to Chagos, the situation is in no way comparable.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I strongly welcome all three Front-Bench statements on this vital matter? I would like to say, as someone who was politically active in 1982, that I well remember the failure of deterrence, which was partly fuelled by mass agitation for nuclear disarmament—an unrelated subject—at that time. Although the Minister says that there is no connection or parallel with the Chagos dispute, let me assure her that the signals that have been sent by the Government over Chagos are undermining of deterrence. Will she therefore make it crystal clear to Argentina now that any military action against the Falkland Islands will be met with an overwhelming military response?
Uma Kumaran
I will be very clear to the right hon. Gentleman that we will do everything and anything it takes to protect the Falkland Islands. We have strong support for the nuclear deterrent. On the issue of the Chagos islands, I remind Members across the House that these situations are in no way comparable and bringing domestic politics into these matters does not help us. We have a united approach on how we deal with matters of the Falkland Islands, and we should go forward in that spirit.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
This question has been asked already, but I am still unclear about the process of consenting new drilling at the Falklands. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have a role in consenting new drilling in the Falklands—yes or no?
Uma Kumaran
I reiterate the answer I gave a few minutes ago: the issues to do with drilling in the Falkland Islands are a matter for the Government of the Falkland Islands, and they are in no way comparable to domestic licences.
Murder of George Low: 10th Anniversary
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Uma Kumaran)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) for securing this important debate and for his powerful support for George’s parents Helen and Martyn, and their family. He spoke movingly, and I will do my best to respond to his points.
This is a deeply tragic case that continues to have a profound impact on George Low’s family and loved ones. I also want to acknowledge the impact it has had on Ben, who survived the violent attack, and his family, who have continued to advocate on George’s behalf.
Ten years on, I recognise the strength, determination and courage that George’s family have shown in the face of unimaginable pain and loss. Losing a child is an unbearable pain and something you never truly recover from. At the heart of the debate is a young man whose life was taken far too soon and a family whose lives were changed forever. They have spent a decade seeking answers and justice for George, and I understand their frustration and their pain.
I turn to the Government’s actions. While responsibility for the investigation lies with the Cypriot authorities, the UK Government have remained actively engaged on this case throughout. Consular officials have maintained contact with George’s family and their legal representatives and will continue to do so. We have provided updates whenever new information has been available and sought clarification from the relevant authorities on developments in the investigation.
Consular staff contacted George’s family shortly after his murder in 2016 and have remained in touch over the decade since. They supported the family during visits to Cyprus, helped facilitate meetings with investigators and officials, and provided assistance during the UK coronial inquest. I am glad that the family have been able to access the specialist support services offered by the UK’s homicide service and have a dedicated caseworker in the FCDO. But, of course, what the family need and deserve is answers about George’s death.
Cypriot authorities identified two suspects and issued international arrest warrants. The suspects are understood to have left Cyprus after George’s death and are now believed to be in Turkey. The case remains open with the Cypriot authorities. Throughout this time, the British high commission in Nicosia and consular officials have pushed for progress with the investigation and prosecution of the suspects. George’s family have, quite understandably, engaged lawyers to represent them in this effort. I also acknowledge, as mentioned by my hon. Friend, the help of Justice Abroad.
Our FCDO officials are in contact with George’s family’s lawyers. At the family’s request, the British high commissioner asked the Cypriot authorities in 2024 to consider transferring the case to Turkey so that Turkish authorities could explore a prosecution. This year, further representations were made in support of that request. Frustratingly, the Cypriot authorities decided not to pursue that option. They believed it would be difficult for Cypriot officials to provide the evidence and testimony needed to support the case in the Turkish court.
The FCDO has also engaged with the Turkish authorities directly to press them to take action on arrest warrants. We will continue to reinforce that message with Turkey.
My hon. Friend asked me several questions, so let me address them in turn. First, on legal assistance, as a matter of common practice I cannot comment either way on a matter of mutual legal assistance. However, I can confirm that United Kingdom officials are following up in Turkey and Cyprus to ensure that they have opportunities to progress the case and that those opportunities have been followed up.
Secondly, on release of evidence, I confirm that we have lobbied Cyprus to transfer the case to Turkish jurisdiction. The Cypriot authorities have told us they are not in a position to do that as a result of jurisdictional issues between the two countries. I am aware that the family’s lawyer has asked the Cypriot authorities for clarity on the decision, and I have asked our officials to ensure that that is followed up.
Thirdly, on progressing the investigation in Turkey, again, I have asked officials to ensure that that is followed up to ensure we fully understand the reasons for Cyprus’s position. I have also asked officials to speak again to Turkey about its position on this question.
Finally, on my hon. Friend’s request to meet George’s family and him, the answer is yes. I will speak to my colleague Lord Wood to agree who would be best placed to take that meeting, and I will ensure they get a timely response.
I understand the pain that George’s family have felt for the last 10 years. Ten years without justice is unacceptable, and any family in their position would feel the same. As the Minister responding, it is important to be clear and honest about what the UK Government can and cannot do. We cannot compel another country to take specific investigative, prosecutorial or judicial decisions. Those powers rest with the competent authorities in the countries concerned. What we can do, and what we will continue to do, is support the family, raise the case where appropriate and pursue any credible avenue that would help move this forward. Looking ahead, the Cypriot authorities have confirmed that international arrest warrants remain in place and that they are ready to move forward if either suspect is detained, whether in Turkey or elsewhere. We will continue to press Turkey to take action.
Let me end by saying this. Ten years on, George’s family continue to live with the devastating consequences of his murder. They have shown extraordinary determination in their search for justice, and I pay tribute to them. I also want to thank my hon. Friend for his and his predecessor’s tireless advocacy on this matter. I know my hon. Friend has raised it consistently and tirelessly in this House and will continue to do so.
Although the UK Government cannot resolve the legal and jurisdictional barriers that have complicated this case, we have not forgotten George, and we have not forgotten his family. We will continue to support them, continue to engage with the relevant authorities and continue to press for progress wherever we can. Above all, George was a son, a father, a loved one and a young man whose life was cut tragically short. His family deserve answers, and they deserve to know that this Government will continue to stand alongside them in their pursuit for justice.
Question put and agreed to.
Israel and Palestine
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Uma Kumaran)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for their heartfelt contributions to today’s debate, and I pay tribute to those who called, cross-party, for the actions this Labour Government have taken. I thank the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), for Rugby (John Slinger), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) and for High Peak (Jon Pearce), the hon. Members for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), who also mentioned the work of the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley), the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Dr Opher) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp).
I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary for a deeply moving and powerful speech last week, and for taking action. The Foreign Secretary’s speech resonated with so many across the country. He spoke about the history of his family, and the power of his words and actions were felt by my constituents in Stratford and Bow. On a personal level, I felt profoundly the weight of his remarks, and of the action taken by the United Kingdom. As you mentioned, Madam Deputy Speaker, these are my first remarks from the Dispatch Box, so I hope you will allow me to reflect briefly on the poignance of this moment. The Foreign Secretary spoke of the sanctuary that his family were given. My parents, like so many, were given sanctuary in Britain, which is why I was born in east London. In one generation, my family has gone from being Tamil refugees who fled persecution and war, to their daughter standing here as a Minister in the Foreign Office. That is a testament to the United Kingdom.
As my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the middle east said at the start of this debate, the United Kingdom is a country that stands up for the rule of law, freedom and self-determination, but as the Foreign Secretary powerfully said last week, many of us feel a deep sense of shame about what has unfolded in Palestine under the eyes of the international community. We also condemn the atrocities of 7 October and the murderous actions of the vile Hamas terrorist group.
In the debate, Members rightly welcomed the Government’s standing up for what is right more strongly, and being bolder in the action we have taken. The situation in Palestine is a moral emergency. What the Israeli Government have inflicted on the people of Gaza is a stain on the conscience of the world. The occupation is unlawful. There is increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed. We are witnessing unprecedented violence, including settler terrorism and ethnic cleansing in areas of the west bank. It is for those reasons that the British Government have been bolder in the actions we have taken.
I have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, and I will try to respond to some of the key points. At the outset, let me address the meaningful remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West on the importance of MPs not amplifying division, but promoting understanding. Many Members focused on timing and how sanctions will work, and on concerns about rising antisemitism, arms sales and E1 expansion, so I will take those issues in turn.
On timing, there is an urgent need to respond to the deteriorating reality in Palestine. We have seen a sharp rise in settler violence, accelerating settlement expansion and a persistent failure to hold those responsible for violence to account. These recent developments threaten the viability of prospects for lasting peace, security and prosperity for Israelis and Palestinians. Our immediate priority in our designations will be to prevent settlement expansion, including in E1. We have not done this alone. We are acting alongside France and Canada, and are joining the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Spain and Norway, which have all either banned goods or are in the process of doing so. Many other countries—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Poland, Portugal and Sweden—have pledged their support for further action.
On implementation and whether matters can be expedited, implementation will take six to nine months. That is a reasonable and necessary timeframe. We are working intensively on implementation. Sanctions are powerful and technical. We must take the time necessary to ensure that the measures are effective and enforceable.
On the legislative changes that may be needed, we are acting as swiftly as we can. We are also taking more immediate steps. As the Foreign Secretary announced last week, we have sanctioned a further group of extremist settlers who have supported or incited violence against Palestinian communities. We have expanded the global human rights sanctions regime, enabling swifter action against those involved in violations of international humanitarian law, whether in Gaza or anywhere else in the world. At the UN General Assembly in New York later this month, we will shine a harsh spotlight on what is happening and what must change.
On genocide and arms export licences, the UK has always supported full, robust and fair judicial processes to consider allegations, with final determinations made by competent courts before the British Government reach a conclusion. It is right that the issue has been brought before the ICJ, and I make clear that we support the court in coming to its determination.
Andy McDonald
The Minister is setting out the criteria around the crime of genocide, but would she accept that the duty actually bites when the risk of genocide is known, not at the determination of legal processes? That is when the United Kingdom has a duty to act. I welcome the steps that have been taken thus far.
Uma Kumaran
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and as I have said, final determinations will be made by competent courts before the British Government reach a conclusion.
Uma Kumaran
No, I will carry on. The measures are not a ban on travel, tourism or visits to religious sites. British citizens will continue to be able to visit Jerusalem and religious sites in line with FCDO travel advice. The measures are not a ban on religious expression. The measures focus on settlement-related economic activity, not on people because they are Israeli, Jewish or any particular nationality or faith. We continue to oppose the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, and will provide appropriate exemptions and continue to listen to the British Jewish community and its concerns.
I will address the arms sales question, which came up multiple times. Britain has already suspended or refused over 80 export licences used by the IDF in Gaza. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) asked how the sanctions will work and how they will be lifted. Through our new regime, we will ban the import of goods from illegal Israeli settlements and create new powers to act against individuals and companies that support, facilitate or profit from illegal settlement activity. On when the sanctions will or will not be lifted, we will continue to address and assess the actions of any Israeli Government in the future, whether in Gaza or the west bank, and the ban on such exports will remain in place for as long as the occupation persists, as will the ban on the advertising and promotion of land and property in illegal settlements.
We are working intensively on the measures. Sanctions are a powerful and technical tool, and it is important that we design them carefully so that they have the impact we intend. The measures are designed specifically to target activity linked to illegal settlements—particularly that which underpins the expansion of settlements—while protecting legitimate trade between the UK and green-line Israel.
The enforcement of sanctions is a priority for Government. The Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation, HMRC and the National Crime Agency all have important roles in enforcement and implementation. We will work closely across Government to ensure, in practical terms, that settlement postcodes will be identified and appropriate checks will be put in place to verify compliance. When breaches occur, the Government have a range of civil and criminal powers available, ranging from civil penalties to, in the most serious cases, prosecution, including powers to confiscate assets found to be the proceeds of crime. Detailed guidance will be published alongside any future legislation. Let me be clear: companies that do not take sanctions compliance seriously will face real and full consequences.
Members have rightly raised concerns about rising antisemitism. Those are concerns that we take seriously. Antisemitism is a scourge and an evil. We must call it out at every turn. In east London, where I represent, we are proud to have Jewish and Muslim communities living side by side, and long may that continue.
The measures announced are a response to the deteriorating reality in Palestine. We have seen rising settler terrorism, accelerating settlement expansion and a persistent failure to hold those responsible for violence to account. The Government must be able to disagree with the policies of the Israeli Government, uphold international law and act in relation to illegal settlements. I reiterate what the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East have said: holding British Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government is antisemitism, plain and simple.
On humanitarian support, Members have rightly raised the appalling suffering that children are enduring in Gaza. Last year, a cross-Government taskforce supported 50 critically ill and injured children, together with their immediate families, to leave Gaza and receive specialist treatment in NHS hospitals across the UK. As confirmed in a written ministerial statement in June, the UK will resume this support this year for those identified as needing urgent medical care, giving children access to specialist treatment that is not currently available locally. We recognise that many of these children and their families have experienced lasting and profound trauma.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton raised that point and humanitarian aid matters, as well as questions on our aid budget. The Minister for the Middle East has met with the World Food Programme, and has today reaffirmed this Labour Government’s manifesto commitment of 0.7% of GDP when fiscal circumstances allow. The safety and wellbeing of the children in Gaza remains our highest priority. The United Kingdom remains committed to supporting humanitarian assistance to Gaza, where basic needs remain unmet. We continue to prioritise health, nutrition, water, sanitation and hygiene programmes. This financial year, we are providing £23.3 million to UNRWA, supporting healthcare, education, social services, emergency food assistance and shelter.
My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow West and for Dulwich and West Norwood raised deep concerns on the support of children and students. In May, we announced a new partnership to deliver rehabilitation and prosthetic limbs for children with blast injuries. We also continue to support UK-Med field hospitals in Gaza.
My hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth and for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) mentioned World Central Kitchen. This matter is deeply concerning, and I pay tribute to their constituents who were killed. The Foreign Secretary has committed to meeting them, and I thank them for continuing to be powerful advocates here. The Government pay tribute to James Kirby, James Henderson and John Chapman, and our thoughts remain with their families. For more than two years, we have pressed Israel to deliver the justice and accountability that the families deserve. We have raised this with the Israeli authorities and will continue to push for answers. However, I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth and the family of her constituents that the rumours they have heard are simply not true.
In addition, we are providing a further £1 million for mine action in Gaza this year, on top of £4 million last year. Alongside that support, we will continue to work with a growing alliance of countries led by Arab partners in the region to advance the 20-point peace plan and support practical efforts to secure a lasting peace.
Last year, we supported more than 100 students to exit Gaza and take up their places at top UK universities. That support is continuing, with the first group of students arriving at the end of August, and more planned over the coming weeks and months.
Turning briefly to wider regional security, we recognise that events in Palestine are not happening in isolation. Iran barbarically slaughters its own civilians and continues both to threaten Israel and Jewish communities around the world and to threaten and endanger people across the middle east and here in the United Kingdom. Those consequences are felt far beyond the region, including here at home, through pressure on energy prices, food security and household budgets.
We have already designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and, as the Foreign Secretary has made clear, we will continue to target Iran’s proxy groups. Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. That is why, alongside our allies, we are reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for its nuclear violations. We are also reimposing major economic sanctions on Iran in line with the European Union and United States.
The United Kingdom strongly condemns the Houthi decision to resume conflict in Yemen and in Saudi Arabia. We offer our condolences to those injured and affected, and stand with Saudi Arabia and the internationally recognised Government of Yemen and regional partners.
Let me close by thanking Members for a thoughtful and considered debate, as mentioned by the shadow Minister.
Uma Kumaran
I will make progress, as you have already given me the look, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let me close by reiterating that the two-state solution—freedom, security and self-determination for both the Palestinian and Israeli people—is the guiding principle of this Government’s policy. This is why we are taking action. We refuse to be bystanders to further suffering and to the destruction of the two-state solution. This Government are not silent in the face of deep injustice, nor are we powerless. The only route to security for both peoples is a safe and secure Israel and a safe and secure Palestine, living side by side in peaceful coexistence.
I have seen that co-operation is possible. I visited the west bank and Jerusalem last year, when I was a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It was a young Israeli NGO worker who bravely led me to her friend, a Palestinian grandfather—his house had been demolished, and her security was at risk for the very fact that she had led us to him. But together, they spoke of their dreams for peace for both the Israeli and Palestinian people. It is that hope for peace and hope of the two-state solution that we must keep alive.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Israel and Palestine.
Oral Answers to Questions
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Uma Kumaran)
This Government inherited a situation from the previous Conservative Government where UK control over the vital UK-US military base in Diego Garcia was under threat. This is about the long-term safety and national security of the United Kingdom and the British people. Maintaining the long-term operational control and security of the base remains a top priority; that is the entire basis for the UK-Mauritius agreement. A financial element was a crucial part of that deal.
Dr Evans
We have heard that line for the last two years. The question that the public want answered, and the one I asked the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), before the summer, is: where is the case? The former Defence Secretary said that he was looking at the details closely. Six weeks on, can the Minister confirm that the deal is now dead, as it should be?
Uma Kumaran
The hon. Gentleman asks about the payments, but he knows that this is about the long-term safety and national security of the United Kingdom and the British people. Diego Garcia is a key strategic military asset for both the United Kingdom and the United States that has protected our shared security for nearly 60 years. At the time, the Conservative Government held 11 rounds of negotiations with the Mauritians; at the time, they argued that Britain’s defence was best served by having legal certainty over the Chagos islands. Funding for the treaty will be provided within the existing spending review settlements for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Ministry of Defence.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I begin by welcoming the Foreign Secretary and his new team to their places. In particular, I welcome the Minister; I am cross with her for leaving the Foreign Affairs Committee and we will miss her very much. She was a formidable member of our Committee, and I am proud to see her take such a well-deserved place on the Front Bench.
Now to the work. On the issue of islands that the UK— and now supposedly the United States—takes a great interest in, will the Minister provide an official response to President Trump’s latest nonsense that he might withdraw support for UK sovereignty over the Falklands?
Uma Kumaran
I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her warm words. The UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands: they are, and will always remain, a British overseas territory, in line with the wishes of the Falkland Islanders. The UK is steadfast in our support of the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination. While I have seen the comments that the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee referred to, our position remains unchanged.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I welcome the new Foreign Secretary and his Ministers to the team, and I convey the apologies of the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who is overseas. May I associate Conservative Members with the Government’s condolences following the devastating floods in Nepal and Tibet? Our thoughts are with all those who have lost loved ones, those who are still missing—including British nationals—and the emergency workers undertaking extraordinarily difficult rescue operations.
In April, after the US withdrew its support, Ministers admitted that the Chagos treaty had become:
“impossible to agree at political level”.
However, the Government now say that they are again trying to push the deal forward with Washington. What has changed? I will give the Government another change to answer the question. Has the US agreed to amend the 1966 UK-US agreement governing Diego Garcia, and why is the Department budgeting for a deal that remains blocked by our closest security ally?
Uma Kumaran
We worked in lockstep with the US in developing and testing the deal to ensure that it meets both UK and US security requirements. I am not going to give a running commentary on this matter. The US Administration have repeatedly supported this agreement, and nothing in this treaty has changed since the US originally gave its endorsement to the deal. We have always been clear that the US Government must be content with the agreement before we proceed in ratifying the treaty, and we will continue to work with the US and Mauritius to find a way forward that is in the UK’s best interests and protects our national security.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Middle East
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s points, because in order to have a state of Palestine, we need to support the Palestinian Authority to become a functioning and effective state. That includes funding, but it also includes pressure, because the Israeli Government are currently withholding Palestinian money, and that money needs to be restored to it. We need to be able to support the Palestinian economy as well.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I welcome the update on the new and co-ordinated sanctions announced by the Foreign Secretary today. According to the United Nations, its figures show that violent incidents perpetrated by illegal Israeli settlers in the west bank reached an all-time high last autumn—for the shameful reason that the attacks reach their peak when there are fresh olive harvests to destroy. This behaviour is state sanctioned, and settlements are state sponsored and state financed. This Government accept that the settlements are illegal, so why have they chosen not to end trade with illegal Israeli settlements once and for all?
Yvette Cooper
It is exactly because of our deep concern about the illegal settlements, and also about the escalating scale of settler violence, that we have introduced the new sanctions, which go after the organisations that have the greatest impact in terms of funding and organisational support for the settlers, where we have seen these serious problems. We have also strengthened the issues around business, because no businesses from the UK should be trading or engaging in economic activity in these illegal settlements. We will continue to work with international allies on what more can be done, both around illegal settlements and around the wider peace process. I say again that we will make progress on this wider peace process only in conjunction with our allies and partners.
Bill Presented
National Security (State Threats)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Shabana Mahmood, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Yvette Cooper, Secretary Jo Stevens, Secretary Douglas Alexander, Secretary Hilary Benn and Dan Jarvis, presented a Bill to make provision for the designation of bodies involved in foreign power threat activity; to create offences relating to bodies designated under this Act; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 12) with explanatory notes (Bill 12-EN).
Oral Answers to Questions
Uma Kumaran Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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(9 months, 1 week 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(10 months, 3 weeks 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(10 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
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.