Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, whether his Department has investigated whether UK arms were used in the Israeli military airstrike on a residential compound in Al Mawasi in Gaza on 18 January 2024.
Answered by Andrew Mitchell - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Minister for Development)
The Foreign Secretary has underlined the need for Israel to ensure effective deconfliction in Gaza, and ensure effective systems to guarantee the safety of humanitarian operations. It must take all possible measures to ensure the safety of medical personnel and facilities.
We continue to raise this with Israel at the highest levels.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to what date UK funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has been transferred to that body; and whether any funding has been provided for the financial year 2024-25.
Answered by Andrew Mitchell - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Minister for Development)
We are appalled by allegations that UNRWA staff were involved in the 7 October attack against Israel, a heinous act of terrorism that the UK Government has repeatedly condemned. We are pausing any future funding of UNRWA.
The UK provided £35 million to UNRWA this financial year, including an uplift of £16 million for the Gaza humanitarian response, all of which was disbursed before the recent allegations came to light. No more British funding is due this financial year.
Our decision to pause future funding to UNRWA has no impact on the UK's contribution to the humanitarian response.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what number and proportion of Personal Independence Payment decisions overturned at tribunal were due to (a) the tribunal panel drawing a different conclusion based on the same evidence, (b) oral evidence given by the individual and (c) new written evidence provided at the hearing in each year for which data is available.
Answered by Mims Davies - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
Analysis of unpublished Personal Independence Payment (PIP) data held by DWP provides data on why decisions by DWP decision makers have been overturned at a tribunal hearing between January 2014 and September 2023 and is shown annually in the tables below. This information is taken from Decision Notices and recorded on the PIP computer system.
This data only provides one reason per appeal why decisions by DWP decision makers have been overturned at a tribunal hearing, and therefore may not give the full story as there may be other reasons.
Appeals data is taken from the DWP PIP computer system’s management information. Therefore, this appeal data may differ from that held by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service for various reasons such as delays in data recording and other methodological differences in collating and preparing statistics.
These figures are the result of a complex data match across a number of data sets. This data is unpublished data. It should be used with caution, and it may be subject to future revision.
Learning from this information, we have made improvements to our decision-making processes to help ensure we make the right decision as early as possible in the claim journey. We have introduced a new approach to decision making at both the initial decision and the Mandatory Reconsideration stage, giving Decision Makers additional time to proactively contact customers where they think additional evidence may support the claim.
Summary reason DWP decision | Appeal clearance year | |||||||||
2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 (to September) | |
Cogent documentary evidence | 100 | 2,000 | 6,300 | 5,000 | 4,400 | 2,600 | 1,900 | 400 | 200 | 300 |
Cogent oral evidence | 1,100 | 14,700 | 22,900 | 26,500 | 25,100 | 26,200 | 11,800 | 8,800 | 8,800 | 11,800 |
Reached a different conclusion on | 200 | 2,900 | 7,700 | 13,600 | 21,100 | 24,600 | 26,100 | 16,300 | 16,700 | 17,500 |
Other | 100 | 2,300 | 5,200 | 8,200 | 7,600 | 7,100 | 5,000 | 1,900 | 1,900 | 2,000 |
Summary reason DWP decision | Appeal clearance year | |||||||||
2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 (to September) | |
Cogent documentary evidence | 6% | 9% | 15% | 9% | 8% | 4% | 4% | 1% | 1% | 1% |
Cogent oral evidence | 75% | 67% | 54% | 50% | 43% | 43% | 26% | 32% | 32% | 37% |
Reached a different conclusion on | 14% | 13% | 18% | 26% | 36% | 41% | 58% | 60% | 61% | 56% |
Other | 4% | 10% | 12% | 15% | 13% | 12% | 11% | 7% | 7% | 6% |
Note:
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, with reference to paragraph 44 of the summary grounds of the Secretary of State in the case of The King (on the application of Al-Haq) v. Secretary of State for Business and Trade, AC-2023-LON-003634, for what reason the assessment on Israel's commitment to comply with international humanitarian law was deferred for ministerial decision.
Answered by Andrew Mitchell - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Minister for Development)
We regularly review advice about Israel's capability and commitment to International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and act in accordance with that advice. As the Foreign Secretary has said, Israel has the capability and commitment to act within IHL, but we are also deeply concerned about the impact on the civilian population in Gaza. We continue to call for IHL to be respected and civilians to be protected. The Foreign Secretary stressed this with Israeli political leaders in his visit of 24 January.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, whether he has received legal advice on the implications for his Department's policies of the International Court of Justice’s decision on the request for provisional measures in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).
Answered by Andrew Mitchell - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Minister for Development)
We regularly review advice about Israel's capability and commitment to International Humanitarian Law and we act in accordance with that advice. We respect the role and independence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ); however, we have stated that we have considerable concerns about this case, which is not helpful in the goal of achieving a sustainable ceasefire. Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas in line with IHL, as we have said from the outset. Our view is that Israel's actions in Gaza cannot be described as a genocide, which is why we thought South Africa's decision to bring the case was wrong and provocative. The Court's call for the immediate release of hostages and the need to get more aid into Gaza is a position we have long advocated. We are clear that an immediate pause is now necessary to get aid in and hostages out, and then we want to build towards a sustainable permanent ceasefire, without a return to the fighting.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, with reference to paragraph 40 of the summary grounds of the Secretary of State in the case of The King (on the application of Al-Haq) v. Secretary of State for Business and Trade, AC-2023-LON-003634, if he will publish the out-of-cycle international humanitarian law assessment produced by his Department's Middle East and North Africa directorate on 8 December 2023.
Answered by Andrew Mitchell - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Minister for Development)
We regularly review advice about Israel's capability and commitment to International Humanitarian Law and act in accordance with that advice. It would not be appropriate to comment on documents related to ongoing legal proceedings. We continue to call for International Humanitarian Law (IHL) to be respected in the conflict and for civilians to be protected.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, with reference to Q639 of the oral evidence given by the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 9 January 2024, HC 325, and to paragraph 50 of the summary grounds of the Secretary of State in the case of The King (on the application of Al-Haq) v. Secretary of State for Business and Trade, AC-2023-LON-003634, for what reason the Secretary of State said to the Committee that his role was not to make a legal adjudication on whether Israel had breached international humanitarian law.
Answered by Andrew Mitchell - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Minister for Development)
We regularly review advice about Israel's capability and commitment to International Humanitarian Law and act in accordance with that advice, including in relation to arms exports. The Foreign Secretary's role is to advise the Secretary of State at the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) on certain Criteria in the Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, including whether there is a clear risk that controlled goods exported under a licence might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL, and it is for the Secretary of State at DBT to act in light of that advice.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, what legal advice he has received on the risk that UK manufactured (a) arms and (b) components have been used during the conflict in Gaza.
Answered by Andrew Mitchell - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Minister for Development)
It is the long-standing policy of the Government not to comment on the legal advice it receives. Nevertheless, we are monitoring the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories very closely. All export licences are kept under careful and continual review, and we can amend, suspend, refuse or revoke licences as circumstances require.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, what assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the potential impact of Israel's dual use policy on getting aid into Gaza.
Answered by Andrew Mitchell - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Minister for Development)
The Foreign Secretary's Representative for Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is based in the region and is working intensively to address the blockages preventing more aid reaching Gaza.
Israel must take steps, working with other partners including the UN and Egypt, to significantly increase the flow of aid into Gaza including allowing prolonged humanitarian pauses, opening more routes into Gaza and restoring and sustaining water, fuel and electricity.
We have trebled our aid commitment for this financial year and are working closely with partners in international agencies and in the region to increase access.
Asked by: Richard Burgon (Labour - Leeds East)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether his Department has made an assessment of the reasons for Personal Independence Payment decisions being overturned at mandatory reconsideration in 2022-23.
Answered by Mims Davies - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The reasons for Personal Independence Payment decisions being overturned at Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) are evaluated locally on a case-by-case basis, and we continue to learn from this. The Department’s overarching focus at the MR stage is on ensuring that each application is thoroughly reviewed, including considering all available evidence and contacting the claimant where necessary. Decisions will be changed at the MR stage where the evidence supports this, resolving disputes as early as possible and reducing the need to appeal.