What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I am sure his point has not been lost on the Minister, and we await with great anticipation what he will say from the Dispatch Box. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude. Trade with these settlements is fundamentally incompatible with international law. It is time to turn our solidarity into decisive action, cut off the economic lifelines of this illegal occupation and implement a total trade ban.
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I will speak briefly on new clauses 79 and 80. I really like the intent of these new clauses, and the idea of Government working better and more together, public health being more of an agenda, and trying to get people working together in that framework. I am pretty sure that every Member in the House would support that. I do, however, have some serious concerns about the wording. New clause 79 proposes a new committee, whose membership would include at least one Minister from each Department and all Cabinet Ministers—I presume that that is in addition, so it would be all Cabinet members plus one other Minister from each Department, which makes it seem like quite an unwieldy committee. There comes a point when a committee, if it has 70 people in it, ceases to be a committee, particularly when it will also need to be chaired, have clerks and have various people in the room. I have concerns about its size. I also have concerns about the frequency with which it would meet, and the requirement that every single Cabinet Minister must attend a minimum of three times a year, which is the implication of the wording.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the centrality of public health to the founding of the NHS. Earlier in Committee, I said that the NHS was the greatest gift the Labour party had ever given the country, and I fundamentally believe that. He is absolutely right to mention the centrality of public health in that process. I also thank him for his recommendation of a book to read over recess—that is always a pleasure. To return to new clause 79, I want to focus on what we are asking when we say that all Cabinet members have to attend this new committee. That would include the Secretary of State for Defence, and although I understand cross-Government working and the need for Departments to work more closely together, I am scratching my head over what actions we expect the Secretary of State for Defence to take to support public health, and especially over the fact that they will be required to attend this committee a minimum of three times a year with, in my reading of the wording, another Defence Minister.
I absolutely join the hon. Member in thanking those service personnel who do so much good around the world, but I wonder whether it is appropriate to ask the Secretary of State for Defence to focus on public health. It is absolutely right that the Defence Department could do things, but does the Secretary of State need to be so centrally involved in this committee that they will have to attend three times a year, in addition to another Minister, who will have to attend a minimum of four times a year? Yes, a variety of Departments would be able to do that.
I very much appreciate that intervention, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting published in a very important journal. I am not in any way saying that the Secretary of State should not have any regard—[Interruption.] Now that he has made a joke, I want to say that I think he looks like a trombonist, rather than a trumpeter. There is a very important point to draw out here. Although Departments can think about the public health impacts of the work that they undertake—I am sure many Ministers will do so—I am not sure there needs to be such a requirement to focus on public health for the Ministry of Defence, which obviously has a very significant, serious role. New clause 80 would require all Ministers to have regard to public health. I really appreciate and value that—I think this is a good debate for us to have—but if the Minister for investment has managed to secure an investor to save a large business that is essential to the economy of an area, do I want them to be held up by having to demonstrate that the investment will ensure public health? I am not sure I do. A lot of decisions have to be made very quickly. I am not going to go through a long list of Ministers; we would all be here until next week. I just think the wording of the new clause is too broad, and I am not sure I can support it in its current form because it would place too much of a requirement on too many Departments to focus too much on areas that are not their core responsibilities.
To quote the Precision Health Technologies Accelerator at the University of Birmingham, very close to my Lichfield constituency, its leadership has been supportive of the removal of tariffs from pharmaceuticals, saying that the introduction of the tariffs could lead to “supply chains collapsing and patients suffering.” That is an enormous growth opportunity for the West Midlands combined authority, for Birmingham and for the wider region. There have been a lot of discussions, but I wanted to make sure that the views of organisations that will benefit are on the record, because this will be so beneficial for my region.
1. What steps she is taking to support the long-term financial sustainability of farm businesses.
Farmers across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages know that one of the most important things for them to make their businesses work is access to fertiliser at a price that allows them to be profitable. What can the Government do to ensure that fertiliser prices do not spike, as we have seen in the last couple of years, and remain stable in the long term?
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for not quite being able to get here for the kick-off. The Secretary of State talks about the importance of the ceramics industry, both in economic and heritage terms. Does he agree that ceramics firms offer us a huge amount of soft power around the world? The “Made in Stoke-on-Trent” and the “Made in England” marks are so important, and in my constituency, we have Armitage Shanks, a name known all around the world for the products that it provides. Does he agree with that point?
I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing the debate. I have supported my constituent Emma Hunwick and her campaigning on this issue. It is the third time I have attended a debate on this subject in the two years I have been an MP. I hear what the Minister says about research, but I think what supporters want is assurance that we will not be having a similar conversation again next year. They want confidence that we will have made some progress in the next 12 months.
I declare that one of my children is in receipt of the disability living allowance. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the interim report. Earlier, we heard—without irony—a list of criticisms from the Opposition about the personal independence payment that they handed over to this Government. Clearly, part of the problem is also the SEND policies and the health service that they handed over to this Government. As my right hon. Friend knows, I believe that we need cross-departmental buy-in as part of this process, as part of the SEND review, as part of health reform in the 10-year plan and as part of a review of PIP. Will he commit today to continuing to look at that issue, particularly for young people, and to looking again at whether to raise the age of transfer from DLA to PIP from 16 to 18?
Further to the Foreign Secretary’s responses to questions about the defence, security and resilience bank and the multilateral defence mechanism, can she flesh out how the UK envisages those initiatives working more closely together, in practical terms and maybe in financial terms?
I thank the Minister for his work and look forward to welcoming him to Graeae theatre in my constituency, which is an exemplar of how to support disabled people to work and fully participate. In the discussions he has had so far, is he looking at adaptive technology? Money can be one of the barriers to living a full life, but there are now new technologies that can sometimes be in place of some of the funding that has been available for people to buy things themselves. Is he having any discussions with the steering group on that issue?
I am proud to represent Shoreditch, which has a lot of tech start-ups, so I welcome my hon. Friend’s report. Following on from the question from, and answer to, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), will she expand on how we can get that money into tech businesses, so that they can grow and develop? A lot of my businesses find that the machinery of Whitehall is slow and clunky, and they can get better investment quicker from other jurisdictions and sources. What does my hon. Friend hope that the Government can do, in relation to setting up the new fund that her Committee proposes? Does she have any faith that the Government will be able to move at the pace needed for those tech companies to grow, and to stay in the UK?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for laying out her remarks so clearly—much better than I could have done—and to the Father of the House. Emotion rightly comes into this debate. We are not just legislators, and we need to bring that sense of feeling. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) is right to highlight not just that the settlements are happening, but that the aggression, backed up by the Israeli Government, exacerbates the issue. Does she have any hope that, realistically, any election in Israel will change that, and does she agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central that we need to act internationally to resolve this? I do not have faith that an election in Israel will stop this happening.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his work with disability groups as part of the review. As I saw during the APPG on disability roundtable and at the roundtable in Newcastle that I organised, the lived experience of those affected by disability must drive the reform of the disability benefit system. The report highlights that that lived experience is also shaped by the misinformation, disinformation and confusion around disability benefits as part of the wider public debate, which can lead to the demonisation of those with disabilities. It can also lead to unrealistic assumptions and expectations in communities more broadly. What can he do as part of his review to address that misinformation, disinformation and confusion, and ensure a stronger, more rigorous and better evidenced public debate?
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on our report, “Science diplomacy: Sovereignty, strategy and the global race”. I am pleased to see members of the Committee in the Chamber. I want to put on record my thanks to the Committee Clerks and specialists who have supported this inquiry, as well as the many witnesses who gave evidence. I may have mentioned before that I am proud to be a chartered engineer with over 20 years of experience in industry, and for 16 years, I have been an engineer in the House, but as my friends, family and perhaps too many of my colleagues will attest, I am not a diplomat. In chairing this inquiry, I have learned much about the essential work of our diplomatic service and the international work of so many organisations and institutions, from the Royal Society to our armed forces. I thank them for their contribution. We found—the football analogy I am about to use was in the report even before England’s amazing win over Mexico—that the UK is in the premier league when it comes to scientific strengths and our global diplomatic network, but we do not know where we stand when it comes to science diplomacy. We launched our inquiry in April last year to examine how the UK Government should leverage scientific research and innovation to support its diplomatic goals, growth missions and national security. We held five public sessions and received over 50 written submissions. As the topic is so broad, we chose to look at the issues through three lenses: health and life sciences, quantum, and space. We also chose to focus on the UK Government’s strategy for science diplomacy, and its implications for sovereignty and research security, as part of the wider topic. First of all, we found that the UK has failed to adapt to the pace of geopolitics. The geopolitical landscape has been turned upside down in recent years. Alongside rapid technological advancement, this has made science diplomacy more important than ever. I will give three quick examples to illustrate this. First, the global talent fund was the UK’s attempt to capitalise on the US retreat from science funding, but as it does not address the huge up-front costs faced by researchers, it is unlikely to have the impact that the Government desired. As of June this year, just 18 researchers had been announced as taking up new roles through the fund. That is not going to move any dials. Secondly, while the Committee recognises that overseas development assistance spending has been reduced to allow the defence budget to be increased, our report highlights the short-sighted nature of some of the cuts that followed, and the impact on ODA for research and development. Thirdly, the UK-US pharmaceutical agreement has secured benefits—notably, exemptions from tariffs—but it also appears to have involved significant commitments affecting core elements of UK domestic policy. Although the global nature of the pharmaceuticals sector means that trade negotiations will inevitably have an impact on it, surely decisions about NHS spending, pricing and access to medicines should primarily be driven by the needs of UK patients, and balanced with the sustainability of the life sciences sector. Our second key finding was that there is a lack of overarching strategy. Witnesses consistently cited the strengths of the UK’s research base. Though we have less than 1% of the worldwide population, we have 6% of global publications and receive one 12th of global citations. We found that the Government have not articulated a coherent strategic framework for science diplomacy, despite those strengths. Such a framework should set out priority partners and technologies, and the intended outcomes of partnerships. For the six frontier technologies in the digital and technologies sector plan, and for space, the Government should bring forward detailed cross-governmental strategies, accompanied by clear delivery plans. The forthcoming plan for space provides an important opportunity to do that. The report also describes the Government’s approach to international scientific agreements and science diplomacy as “opportunistic”. Thirdly, we found that in a geopolitical landscape that, as I said, has been turned upside down, the UK is in a global race for sovereign capability, whether it acknowledges it or not. The US’s decision to ban foreigners’ access to Anthropic’s most powerful artificial intelligence models was a watershed moment that proved—to mix metaphors, perhaps—that there is actually a kill switch. The Government must reflect on this when considering our ambitions for secure sovereign capability. Although the own-collaborate-access framework provides a useful foundation for prioritising the UK’s approaches to critical technology, it is applied at too high a level to actually influence and guide decision making. There are so many definitions of “sovereignty” circulating. That impedes our ability to give our international stakeholders clear signals, and prevents businesses from getting the signals that they need to apply their resources—skills, investment, research and development—to the technologies that the Government will procure on a sovereign basis. The UK is highly successful at generating world-leading research and innovation, but less so in turning that strength into the growth of high-tech domestic companies. Too many UK-developed technologies are forced to look abroad to scale. The private sector needs clearer investment signals. Yesterday at the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s evidence session, the Secretary of State emphasised frontier models, computer chips and compute as parts of the AI tech stacks that she would like to have sovereign capability in. We need more clarity like that. To finish, we have four areas of recommendation. On global policy, our report calls on the Government to strengthen the UK’s international science and technology position through a clearer strategy, greater investment and improved resilience. On strategy, we call on the Government to publish a coherent science diplomacy strategy, with clear criteria for decisions on science partnerships, and with explicit strategies for engagement with the US and the EU, Commonwealth partners, other middle powers and competitors such as Russia and China. On sovereignty, the Government should define what “technological sovereignty” means when it comes to critical technologies and particularly AI, identify key dependencies in supply chains, and use that analysis to guide investment and procurement decisions. To support innovation, we recommend improving scale-up capital, expanding specialist investment funds and using public procurement more strategically to help UK technology firms grow. Finally, on research security, and with the recent Biobank leak in mind, our report calls for stronger research security guidance, improved information sharing between Government and institutions such as universities, and a cross-Government plan to develop a sustainable domestic skills pipeline in critical scientific and technological fields. The UK’s excellence in research and innovation is a distinct strategic advantage. To sustain it, we urge the Government to outline a science diplomacy strategy. Through such a strategy, we can ensure that science diplomacy remains a driver of progress, as well as a pillar of soft power.
It is one of the thrusts of the report that we need greater clarity on sovereignty. This is not an academic debate—we do not need philosophical discussions on what sovereignty may or may not mean—but as the shadow Minister indicated, on tech stacks, particular technologies and their supply chains, we need to understand what we are trying to achieve, so that business, academia and Government, and particularly Government procurement, can move in that direction. It is interesting, because it was almost implicit that we did not want to say where we were looking for sovereignty, or where we did not have it, as that might alert our competitors to weaknesses. I think China and Russia probably know our weaknesses quite well, and it is our tech start-ups and our great businesses and scale-ups that need to better understand our intended strengths, so that they can support them.
My hon. Friend highlights an important point in the report on investment and access to it, particularly for sovereign capabilities. That may be for what we call deep tech, which is tech that requires a long-term investment and that will not yield a return tomorrow, or even next year. We recommend supporting the setting up of funds that are dedicated to that, because it takes particular skills and particular access to investment vehicles to support that kind of long-term funding.
I thank my hon. Friend and Select Committee Chair for that excellent question, and congratulate Scotland on the proposed launch. The Committee chose space as one of the lenses through which to look at science diplomacy and all the issues associated with it. Though we did not recommend a Minister for space per se, evidence to the Committee highlighted the confusion about where the responsibility for space lies. Space is increasingly important in defence, and it is an area in which we already see covert, and sometimes explicit, conflict. There is a huge defence programme to consider. It is economically incredibly important as well; we see the role of Starlink and other private sector providers in Ukraine in supporting communications, and the roll-out here. This issue is also important when it comes to negotiations on space debris and all sorts of matters, and it relates to planning permission and domestic issues as well. My hon. Friend is certainly right to advocate for greater clarity on the responsibilities for space.
I thank my hon. Friend and Chair of the Treasury Committee for her question. She highlights one of the principal concerns regarding technology-driven growth, which we reported on in our report “Flying blind: innovation, growth and the regions”: the access to capital, particularly for the kind of tech start-ups that we are discussing, which require long-term investment. One thing we should regret most is DeepMind going to the US to form Google’s excellent AI base, rather than remaining as a UK-owned company. How can we get better long-term investment? I recommend encouraging the growth of specialist funds with deep sectorial expertise. In achieving investment goals, we cannot get around the need to have technological knowledge and to attract international talent and technology leaders. The Government should also use their procurement of UK start-ups and scale-ups, because nothing is so valuable to a company as an actual contract signed with the Government, who are generally known to pay on time.
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because it gives me the opportunity to put on record how much the work of the SINs, which I now think are called the SATs, or something—
Yes, the SINs and the SAINTs. The name may have changed, and there are concerns about the level of support they are receiving from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but there was unanimous support for the work they did. There are countless examples of that support having enabled tech companies to invest in the UK, and UK tech companies to identify and address attractive markets across the world. The SINs, under whatever name, are a successful example of our science diplomacy network.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making those points. I, too, have engaged in written parliamentary questions and oral questions to try to understand why it is apparently so difficult to distinguish between goods from the illegal settlements, which the Minister for the middle east—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer)—said quite clearly should not be traded, and goods from Israel proper. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as long as that differentiation is not made effectively, there is no incentive for Israel to differentiate its goods and to stop hiding settlement goods behind those from Israel proper?
I thank the right hon. Member for his speech. Maybe I can answer his question. Perhaps it is because of a nostalgia for an Israel that no longer exists—an Israel that made the desert bloom. We now have a state of Israel that routinely breaks human rights law, busts human law, and creates a situation in which it is accused of genocide before the ICJ. This is not a state that anyone in this House, let alone on the Labour Benches, should have any sympathy for, because it undermines our ability to hold up international law. When we think about it, the state that now exists is ultimately one that everyone in this House should be able to condemn wholeheartedly.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing today’s debate, and thank Members from all parties for the powerful speeches we have heard. There is clearly cross-party support for the proposition we are debating. I recognise the work that the Government have done, supporting the Palestinians, whether it is targeted sanctions, aid, or recognition of the state of Palestine. However, we must be clear that the UK already recognises that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law. We would oppose the illegal occupation by force of any country, and we must do so in Palestine, too. As in Russian-occupied Ukraine, so too here. More than 750,000 Israeli settlers now live in settlements on the west bank and in East Jerusalem, and there is continued expansion every week, supported by the Israeli Government. That means the demolition of Palestinian homes, the forced displacement of communities, restrictions on movement and the annexation of territory. Save the Children, a charity I worked for before being elected, warns that settler violence has reached “unprecedented” levels, with 1,600 attacks on Palestinians in 2025, attacks on schools, and children facing physical violence on their way to and from school. I remember visiting Palestinian refugee camps and meeting children displaced by Israeli settlers. Those children are the victims of terrorism. The Government’s recent sanctions against a limited number of settlers are a welcome step, but they are insufficient, given the scale of expansion we see. Be in no doubt: the objective of establishing these illegal settlements is to render an independent Palestinian state unviable. The method is terrorism, expropriation, violence and intimidation, and the outcome will be that the two-state solution that this House has long called for will be impossible. I will make two final points. First, trade is important, and bans should not be undertaken lightly or as a gesture. We all recognise the value of deep and complex trade relationships with other countries, both for our economy and prosperity, and so that our societies engage with and understand each other. However, trade relies on rules that are respected—on a system that is rules-based. Our constituents are consumers, and in a free market, they rely on the Government to ensure that trade rules are observed and that their purchases are not making terrorism and instability profitable.
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. It is not just in the UK that people are recognising that Israel is crossing multiple lines; it is across the world, so we must act. As others have said, countries such as Ireland and Spain are taking the decision to ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements. We must too, and now is the time to do so. Secondly, it would be impossible for me to overstate the importance of this issue to my constituents in Edinburgh East and Musselburgh. In my two years as an MP, I have never been asked by constituents to speak in a debate as many times as I have been asked to speak in today’s debate, so I make this speech in their name. The time is long overdue for a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements. The UK must comprehensively ban all trade in goods and services with settlements in the occupied territories.
What does “actively considering” mean? Is there anything active about it? Can the Minister refer to meetings, instructions or deadlines that would manifest as active consideration?
In the highland games season, there are gatherings across my constituency in Blackford, Balquhidder, Lochearnhead and Strathyre, Bridge of Allan, Killin and Stirling. These games celebrate Scottish culture, boost local economies, and bring communities together, and no gathering would be complete without Scotland’s remarkable pipe bands. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing the talented young musicians of Stirling and District Schools Pipe Band every success this year, and thank their tutors, Chris Gibb, Andrew Wallace and Chloe Taylor, for all they do to nurture the next generation of pipers and drummers? Will he also make time for a debate on the importance of highland games and bagpipes to culture, heritage and tourism, and thank all the local volunteers who do so much to ensure the success of every event?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance following remarks made outside this House by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) that have caused profound offence to the community I represent. To describe the Dunblane tragedy as “one murder” diminishes what happened to 16 children and their teacher and the suffering of everyone whose lives were changed forever in March 1996. The people of Dunblane responded not with division but with dignity, compassion and a determination that no other community should endure such horror. It is because of their courage, and the united action of this House, that this country has some of the strongest firearms laws in the world and an ongoing cross-party approach to ensuring that those protections will not be weakened. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise how this House can ensure that the victims of Dunblane are always remembered with the accuracy, respect and compassion they deserve, and that Members reflect on their conduct in this matter?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. As if the House needed any more confirmation that he comes from good stock, I wish his mother a very happy birthday for next week. I think anyone reaching their 90s is a great achievement, and it is no surprise to me that the hon. Gentleman’s mum will be reaching that great milestone in age. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her contribution. Having worked with her over many years, I know how much she cares about these issues. She has always been steadfast and utterly consistent in her views about supporting older people, not just in the UK, but internationally. As the Minister with responsibility for multilateral affairs, I often speak in international fora about peace building and conflict resolution, and I often talk about Northern Ireland. It is sometimes forgotten that we have had conflict on our own shores that lasted for decades. Much the peace building that followed was from women, and from older people who lived through the entire period of the troubles. We forget that we have much to celebrate about the work of the peace process in Northern Ireland; but we must also recognise the impact that the conflict has had and still has on many constituents and people across Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to Margaret, the constituent mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford. I am sure that must have been a fascinating conversation for him as her local MP. The Foreign Secretary has been clear that tackling humanitarian need and reducing the violence caused by conflict and atrocities is a key priority for the Foreign Office. We are committed to delivering the vision for a reformed humanitarian system, set out by the emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, to build a system that is focused on the most vulnerable and prioritises the views of communities affected by crisis. The needs of older people must be central to that work. When we think about the human cost of war, we often think first of children separated from their families, women and girls facing violence, or communities forced from their homes—and while we should continue to do so, we should also recognise that older people are among those hardest hit by conflict, yet they remain largely invisible. At the same time, older people are not one homogeneous group. Age alone does not make someone vulnerable. Many continue to lead, care for others and support their communities, even in the most difficult of circumstances. That is why we must take three steps to address the humanitarian impact of conflict on older people. First, we must recognise that older people can be disproportionately affected by conflict. Today, more than 100 armed conflicts are taking place around the world, from Sudan and Ukraine to Myanmar and Gaza. The experiences of older women and men are too often missing from discussions, data and humanitarian planning. Many are unable to flee when violence erupts. Older people are also often hardest hit in a crisis. Many depend on regular medicines and healthcare, as has been mentioned, so disruptions can quickly become life-threatening. Poor health, disability, limited mobility or caring responsibilities can leave older people trapped in conflict zones long after others have escaped. Others become separated from family members and the support networks on which they rely. Humanitarian assistance is frequently designed without adequately considering those specific needs, which creates barriers to getting food, water and basic services. Older people also face greater risk of neglect, abuse and exclusion, with older women in particular often facing additional and intersecting challenges linked to age, disability and gender. That is why the UK consistently presses all parties to conflict to uphold international humanitarian law and allow rapid, unimpeded humanitarian access to all those in need, including older people. But that alone is not enough, as has been mentioned by Members across the House today. We must work proactively to understand and integrate the needs and perspectives of older people into humanitarian responses. For many years, humanitarian actors have highlighted the lack of systematic data on the needs and experiences of older people during crises. Without data, needs are often overlooked; without visibility, resources are not allocated; and without representation, policies and programmes risk being developed without the participation of those affected. That is why the UK is taking practical action through our humanitarian programmes and partnerships in order to build the evidence base to inform effective responses. Members from across the House have today raised this point about data, and I hope to provide an answer on that particular concern. We work with UN agencies, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and other non-governmental organisations to support humanitarian responses that take account of age, disability and other barriers people may face. We also encourage partners to collect and use age as aggregated data, so that assistance is informed by evidence and reaches those who might otherwise be invisible in humanitarian responses. This is not simply a technical point. As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, it helps to determine whether food distribution points are accessible, whether healthcare reaches those with chronic conditions, whether shelters are sustainable, and whether protection services are identifying those most at risk. In Gaza, for example, the UK has funded assistive products for people injured in conflicts. Each kit can provide practical, lifechanging support for hundreds of people. For an older person, it can be the difference between being left behind and reaching safety, medical care and essential services. We cannot just look through the lens of vulnerability and must recognise older people across the world as leaders, caregivers and contributors to community resilience. Many continue to care for grandchildren, support neighbours, maintain community networks and help others to navigate crises. Humanitarian and conflict responses are more effective when older persons are involved in decisions that affect their life and the lives of those in their broader community. Their knowledge and networks can make responses more effective, more trusted and more sustainable. Let me try to answer some of the more specific points that have been raised by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central was right to raise Sudan; it is the greatest humanitarian crisis of our age. The Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister when he was the Foreign Secretary, and Lord Cameron of the other place have spent the last four years leading the work internationally—multilaterally and bilaterally—to ensure that Sudan remains high on the agenda. In February of this year, when the UK Government chaired the Security Council, the Foreign Secretary chaired a special session focusing purely on Sudan. The Foreign Secretary gave a statement on the Floor of the House today updating us on the NATO summit, the issues around Sudan and the fact that the UK is leading the conversation on trying to bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict. We always need to do more to highlight and broadcast what is taking place in Sudan, because it is truly important to find a resolution that brings about a ceasefire and takes us back to peaceful stability. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central made a particular point around older women being overlooked in conflict, and the hon. Member for Strangford talked about women in relation to the atrocity of sexual violence being used as a weapon of war. I reassure the House that we support women-led and women’s rights projects and organisations, recognising that they are often the most trusted actors in helping to identify the victims of sexual violence and the risks specifically faced by older women, including widows, carers, women with disabilities and women separated from family support. As the special envoy on preventing sexual violence in conflict, as well as in my role as Minister, I have a wider women, peace and security commitment that focuses on not only younger women and girls but older women as well, and making sure that there is support for survivors. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who is no longer in his place, made the point about evidence gathering, justice and retribution for these heinous crimes of sexual violence in conflict. We work as a UK Government to ensure that evidence is gathered and that, in the near future, when we hopefully have peace in Ukraine, Sudan and other conflicts, there is accountability for people who have committed acts of sexual violence in the name of conflict.
To reassure the hon. Gentleman, he knows that I have a personal commitment to working with our freedom of religion or belief envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). He never shies away from the particular point the hon. Gentleman is raising and nor will I as Minister. On the wider point that the hon. Gentleman raises about supporting and working with older people on peacebuilding and resolution, which my hon Friend the Member for York Central also raised, I reassure him and the House that the Department has an instinctive view that locally led, inclusive peacebuilding needs to include elders—the older women and men who understand many of the challenges in the community. We need that support because they bring trust and knowledge. They are leaders in their communities, whether they are of any faith or none. It is extremely important that older people are part of that peacebuilding resolution. In many cases, where older people are engaged in peacebuilding, the process actually lasts longer. That is particularly true of women; when women take part in peacebuilding, there is much evidence to show that many years of peace follow. It is extremely important to the Government that that work continues. A number of Members mentioned Ukraine, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). I reassure the House that the budgets for overseas development and for additional support through the 100-year partnership have been protected, specifically for Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon and Sudan. I reiterate that point because it is extremely important. The House will know that events in Ukraine disproportionately affect older people, as the hon. Member for Strangford said. There is some concerning data that shows disproportionate suffering among civilian casualties, with older people accounting for more than 45% of civilian deaths. Those are real people, not just statistics, and they show the incredible impact that conflict has on older people across Ukraine. We do specific pieces of work to support older people. A number of colleagues raised the issue of assistance and pensions; let me to try to offer some clarity on that. Through the UK Government’s partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and UNICEF, we are supporting the Government of Ukraine in relation to strengthening national social protection systems. We are also trying to make sure that there is more specific support for winter cash assistance and that older people have more support during power outages. The work that the Government do is focused in many of the areas where there is an adverse impact on older people. There has been much conversation about data. I reassure the House that FCDO partners should use disaggregated data, including on sex, age and disability, to understand who is being reached and, crucially, who is missing out on support. I wanted to put that on the record because part of the reason for that expectation is that when considering age-related barriers, we are talking about the risks linked to disability, or based on gender, poverty, health, isolation, displacement and other forms of marginalisation. That expectation is very much set out by the Department. In my time as a Minister, I have never been given a list of questions in advance by the Member leading the debate. I have tried to answer each of them and not miss anything. I have a couple of points to make. One is about the violence against women and girls response. I reassure the hon. Member for Strangford that older women are a part of that work, as I said earlier in my speech. To make that very clear point, it is not about forgetting women who are victims of sexual violence; it is about trying to be as inclusive as we can to offer support to victims in recovery, and to try to prevent sexual violence in conflict. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central and the hon. Member for Strangford raised the UN convention on the rights of older persons to recognise older people and their legacies. I can confirm, as I have done in response to parliamentary questions and to various colleagues who have written to me during my time in this role, that we are supportive of a UN convention on older persons. There are many existing support mechanisms for older people in the UN multilateral system, but that does not mean that some form of convention should not come through. The negotiations are ongoing, but when it happens, although I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee in the sense of who the Minister will be, there is genuine support across HMG for the work of that resolution in supporting older people.
On the timescale, I should warn my hon. Friend that the process has been a matter of debate for some years. She probably knows far more about it than I do, so I cannot stand here and say it will be done by x date. What I can say is that we are a part of those conversations. Our contribution is to try to make sure that as the work that might lead to a convention on older people is brought together, we are not stepping away from it. We are a part of the work that is ongoing.
To reassure my hon. Friend, I frequently meet other Ministers in the UN space in New York, and also in Geneva at the Human Rights Council, where the issues are discussed, and I think there is a willingness for the process to succeed. That work is very much part of the conversation and we are there in the room for much of it. I give her that reassurance. As the global population ages and as conflicts and humanitarian crises continue around the world, the number of older people affected is likely to increase. That is why the UK is working with humanitarian partners to ensure that older people are not overlooked. At the heart of the debate is a simple principle: no person should become invisible because of their age, and no society should overlook the dignity, rights and contributions of those who have spent a lifetime contributing to their communities. The United Kingdom will continue to champion the protection, inclusion and participation of older people in humanitarian action around the world.
I think it is brilliant. SaxaVord got some investment from the UK Government.
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), who has raised many of these issues not just today, but on other days. It is important that we are having this debate. I hope that hon. Members do not mind, but I will not go through each individual Member’s contribution; I will just try to answer the single voice—well, the nearly single voice—that I have heard in the Chamber today. I will try to do so in the most straightforward and up-front way possible. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain) said that we should not avoid the elephant in the room—the humanitarian situation in Gaza. He is absolutely right. It is appalling, disgraceful and despicable. There are so many starving; so many thirsty for clean drinking water; so many lacking shelter and shade; so many lacking daily medicine and emergency care; so many children without teachers, without parents, without brothers and sisters or uncles and aunts, and without friends to join in the playground; so many orphans; so many homeless; so many injured; so many disabled; so many frightened and angry; so many grieving; so many dead. It does shame us all. The Israeli Government must immediately allow all humanitarian aid in so that the people of Gaza can breathe and live. The ceasefire must be abided by. The settlements are morally wrong, legally indefensible and completely counterproductive when it comes to achieving a two-state solution—many hon. Members have said that that may be the deliberate intention of some—or for that matter, I would argue, when it comes to achieving an Israel that is safe and secure within its borders.
I will in a moment. The violence is criminal too. We are grossly alarmed at the expansion, including the proposed E1 settlement bloc, and at the Israeli’s Government’s legislative changes to entrench Government control. I know that not everything we have done has pleased everybody, and that we have not gone as far as many would like, but it is important to say that we have taken action. We have recognised Palestinian statehood, although I note that some people do not support that. We have stopped negotiations on a free trade agreement, although I know that some people do not support that, as we have just heard. We have strengthened the enforcement of tariff differentials between green-line Israel and the illegal settlements, but to be honest, I do not think it is as effective as we would like it to be. That is one of the significant problems both for what we are doing now and for what we might want to do in the future. We have also suspended and blocked military and dual-use licences for equipment that could be used, or is being used, in humanitarian abuse in Gaza. We have sanctioned individuals and organisations linked to the settler movement. We have recently pushed the Charity Commission to look into UK charities that are linked to activities in the illegal settlements. Let me be absolutely clear: of course we support Israel’s right to exist. I do not think that any hon. Member who has taken part in the debate, certainly not on the Government side of the House, is anti-Israel, as the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) suggested. It is perfectly legitimate to criticise the activities of the Israeli Government without wanting to undermine the existence of the Israeli state. That is a really important distinction to make. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that many UK businesses are engaged in perfectly legitimate trade in green-line Israel, which is a powerhouse in many sectors including high tech, pharmaceuticals and so on. I pay tribute to those who have established strong economic relations between Israel and the UK, and, for that matter, between Palestine and the UK—I would like to strengthen that latter connection more. I would like to name UK companies that engage in trade in medicines, food and beverages, and financial services completely legitimately, and in a way that will be supported by everybody in this Chamber, in green-line Israel. Frankly, however, I will not do so for fear of reprisals against those companies, and that in itself tells a tale about the toxicity of this debate. As I have said, the settlements are illegal. There is therefore a legal obligation on us as a Government not to aid or assist the occupation. The immediate corollary of that is that we need to stop UK businesses providing economic support and legitimacy to illegal settlements. Of course, we want to design measures to stop trade with settlements in a way that balances that with enabling British businesses and citizens to benefit from a strong trading relationship with Israel and with Palestine. That is one of the tricks we have to pull off. There are four key things that we could do and are seriously considering. First, we could ban imports to the UK of goods from the illegal settlements. I think all UK consumers would want us to do this effectively, and lots of supermarkets and other chains have been looking to do it in their own way. The challenge is—and this is not an excuse, to respond to the question from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse); it is just a fact—that there is no properly verifiable means of determining the real source. [Interruption.] No, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make the argument, he can criticise me afterwards if he wants to. This situation is very different from Ukraine, because in Ukraine there is a verifiable process to determine whether something is from occupied Crimea or from Ukraine. That is a significant difference. This is not an insurmountable difficulty, but it is a challenge.
My hon. Friend makes a perfectly legitimate point, but the danger is that, if we end up banning all trade with Israel, we fall foul of the other problems I have mentioned.
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will make a little bit more progress, and then I will give way. The second thing we could do and are seriously considering is banning exports of UK goods to the illegal settlements. Members have talked, for instance, of banning the sale of UK machinery. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, referred to one particular company. Here, too, the challenge is that goods move in and out very freely between the illegal settlements and green-line Israel, and that poses a challenge for us. It is not insurmountable, but it is a challenge.
I think my hon. Friend must have misheard, or maybe I misspoke in some way, because I am saying very clearly that there are four things we could do and are seriously considering doing. The important thing is that, where there are challenges, we need to overcome them. It is not that they become an excuse for inaction.