(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberOrder. Once again, a very large number of hon. Members wish to take part in this discussion. The intention is to try to accommodate everybody, but that will mean Members exercising a degree of self-restraint that was not entirely evident during the previous statement. I leave it to you, but if you want everybody to be called, then please, we need questions, not statements. If I may say so, Foreign Secretary, we also need relatively brief answers.
The statement we have from the 25 or 31 partners takes us no further forward. It says:
“We are prepared to take further action to support an immediate ceasefire”.
People want action, not more repetition of, “We call for”, “We demand” and “We urge”. We want action, and this is not action. We have had this so many times before. We have this terrible humanitarian crisis, the forcible transfer of civilians, and starvation by Israel. How can it be that we have a situation in which the IDF are firing at children and systematically going for the head, stomach and testicles for their sport, and in which Rafah has been razed to the ground and this euphemistic “humanitarian city” is being constructed, which the former Prime Minister of Israel has called a “concentration camp”? When are we going to take the appropriate action to bring about a comprehensive trade and arms embargo and concentrate the mind of Israel? Nothing else is working. They are not listening, and they are getting away with murder every single day.
The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen to a word that I said, but I am sure that the Foreign Secretary did.
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberI summoned the Israeli ambassador and set out the strength of views to the Israeli Government that the British Government feel on these questions. It is of vital importance that we have an Israeli ambassador. Whatever the views of this House, it is important that we maintain relations. We also have an ambassador from Iran in London, and that is important, too. We need to be able to deliver messages to friends, to allies and to those with whom we do not enjoy good relations. We will continue to host ambassadors because of the importance of maintaining those diplomatic relations.
The Minister was absolutely right: our dispute and anger is not with the Israeli people but with their leaders, who use their murderous forces to inflict this annihilation on the Palestinian people. The Minister has said that sanctions are not remedies, and that they are an expression of our opinion, but the acid test will be whether the measures actually have an impact and bring about the end to the killing.
I also have to respectfully disagree with the Minister, because as a state party to the genocide, Geneva and Vienna conventions, the UK has a binding obligation to: prevent genocide; refrain from recognising, aiding or assistance an illegal situation arising from serious breaches of peremptory norms of international law; and avoid trade, funding or co-operation that enables or legitimises these violations. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give an undertaking to this House to come back in short order to announce further sanctions that will concentrate their mind, because the fear is that these sanctions will not? Will he also indicate whether, in the absence of a firm commitment to recognise the state of Palestine, His Majesty’s Government will support a vote in this House, by other means, to express the will for that recognition of Palestine?
I have come to this House on a number of occasions to talk about a number of things the British Government have done in relation to this situation. I say that sanctions are no remedy; they are no remedy in this situation. They are so often not a remedy in the many circumstances in which we apply them. I feel much greater satisfaction when we announce positive steps that we have taken—aid that has gone in, partnerships with the region. It is with regret, always, that we announce sanctions. I will not speculate on what further we may introduce in this case or any other, as my hon. Friend will understand. I recognise the limitations of sanctions, but under these circumstances, the Government judged that we had no choice but to express the strength of our feeling through sanctions. On the questions of international humanitarian law, I repeat once again this Government’s commitment to abiding by all our IHL obligations.
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI have heard the force of my hon. Friend’s intervention, and I recognise the feeling right across the House on the need to see the situation in Gaza change. It is an urgency that is felt by Government.
It is increasingly accepted that Israel’s military operation in Gaza, having forcibly displaced and starved millions of Palestinians and killed tens of thousands, amounts to a genocide. The latest feature of that is its aid distribution process, which today does not deliver aid; instead, it is a dehumanising death trap that sees a child receiving treatment in a tent being shot in the head through the side of the tent. For the UK to end its complicity, it must pull all the levers to stop Israel’s military action immediately. There needs to be a shift away from condemnation and demands for Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law to a clear, unequivocal commitment that if Israel does not comply, it will be forced to comply by whatever means. Will the Minister make that commitment?
My hon. Friend has a long commitment to these issues, and we were discussing them through the recess. Clearly, the situation in relation to aid in Gaza remains absolutely desperate. We condemn those scenes—we did so on Sunday. We have been clear in our views about the new aid mechanism, but let us not escape from the fundamental position of the British Government, which is that we oppose this operation in Gaza. We are calling on all those involved to return to a ceasefire. That is what we are working towards.
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberThe hon. Gentleman asks what the concrete action is. It is really straightforward: it is that Netanyahu stops—that he halts his course of action. We are taking concrete action with our allies to try to bring this to an end, but the hon. Gentleman knows that in the end, this is in the hands of the Israeli Government. Holding up our hands and expressing disgust is not sufficient—I recognise that—but the Israeli Government will be held to account if they do not act.
I very much welcome the tone and content of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, although I sincerely wish it had come a long time ago. I have to tell him, though, that British arms are still getting through to Israel in vast quantities to wreak havoc. The question is whether what he says will stop the genocide. For months, the Government have claimed that they cannot make an assessment of whether there is a serious risk of genocide as they are waiting for a determination by the courts. The Government told the High Court last week that they had already conducted an assessment under the genocide convention, so which is it? Has a determination been made, and if so, does the Foreign Secretary want to correct the record?
Arms are not getting to Israel that could be used in Gaza. My hon. Friend will recognise that the United Kingdom is a very small supplier of arms to Israel in percentage terms. I cannot account for other countries, and other countries have not made the decision that we have made. I stand by the assessments I have made that led to me suspending arms.
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Order. May I remind Members not to use the word “you”, because I am not responsible for some of those statements?
The Minister has repeatedly said that we do everything to observe international law. Will he please accept that there is a growing body of opinion that says that the UK is not doing that, and that we are not complying with our obligations if we continue to supply parts for the F-35 programme, because these are dropping weapons on children in Gaza? We cannot say that we are observing the Geneva conventions, the genocide convention and Rome statute if we continue to supply those goods. He talks about doing all that we can. If that is the case, why on earth are we not making it abundantly clear to Israel that trading with it is not an option while this continues? So in answer to the question “Is he doing all he can?”, there are many people in this place and beyond who think that we are not.
I know my hon. Friend’s commitment to these issues over a long period of time. I do not accept the premise of his question. Whether or not we abide by our legal obligations is a question that will be determined by the courts. It is being determined by the courts this week, so I will leave it to the courts to make judgments on our obligations. We are taking all the steps that we can to bring this conflict to a close. He mentions the vital question of the F-35 programme. I know this House understands the significance of that programme, not just in Europe but across the world. The carve-out that we have put in place has been done on the basis of robust legal advice, which is being tested in the courts this week. We must abide by our obligations to our allies. We are not selling F-35s directly to the Israeli authorities. We continue to supply a global spares pool. That is necessary for the continued function of the F-35 programme, which has critical importance to European security. We make these judgments calmly and soberly, and we will continue to do so.
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to return to the question asked by the Liberal Democrat Member. To be clear, on the determination of crimes, we leave that to courts. On the determination of risk, we take action.
As affirmed by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion, Israel is violating the peremptory norms of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, the prohibition against racial discrimination and apartheid, and the prohibition against unlawful use of force. Its occupation of Palestine is illegal and must end as soon as possible. Will the Minister acknowledge that the UK has a duty to suspend all military co-operation and trade with Israel—a duty that stems from a wide range of intersecting international obligations—in the face of grave illegalities committed by the state of Israel?
My hon. Friend asks me about the advisory opinion of the ICJ. We accept that the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal and have been clear about that policy position. I am afraid that we will take some time yet to return to this House with a full response to the ICJ’s advisory opinion, which has a number of novel elements of international jurisprudence, and we are considering it with the seriousness and soberness that it requires. We agree on the fundamentals: the settlements are illegal and must be brought to an end.
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Jammu and Kashmir.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am very pleased to have secured this important debate on the Government’s support for human rights in Jammu and Kashmir, and I would like to thank parliamentary colleagues who have joined me to contribute to the debate. The complex issues faced in the region were last debated here back in 2021, so it is vital that we have this opportunity to highlight the challenges faced by those living in Jammu and Kashmir.
I am proud that we now have a Labour Government who have returned the UK to its rightful place on the world stage, advocating and working for the protection of human rights across the globe. I therefore welcome the opportunity to ask the Minister about that work and how it relates to the now union territories of Jammu and Kashmir.
When our TV screens are sadly filled with images of conflict from around the world, other international issues often fail to get the exposure they perhaps should, and I see part of my role as a Member of Parliament as being to highlight areas of international concern that we should not neglect to bring attention to as we continue to support our international partners in reaching a just solution.
Let us not forget that this troubled region is one of the most militarised places in the world, and ordinary Kashmiris have lived through decades of conflict and widespread abuse at the hands of state and non-state actors. The population of Kashmir remains divided between three countries, and though it is welcome that elections have now been held after a 10-year hiatus, the Indian authorities have failed as yet to provide a timeline for fully restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood. After years of delay, I applaud Jammu and Kashmir for partaking in the democratic process, despite, I am sure, feeling alienated and disempowered after decades of impasse. I want to acknowledge the large Kashmiri diaspora here in Britain, including in Hyndburn and Haslingden, and their aspirations for a just settlement.
As the Minister will know, human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as the United Nations, continue to highlight human rights concerns such as the repression of the media and freedom of speech in Jammu and Kashmir and the widespread use of detention before trial.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom occupies a very special position, given our historical connections with the region? Does she also agree it is imperative that, in all trade discussions, the issues of observing human rights and the right to self-determination are consistently progressed by our Government?
I do agree—that is very important—and I will get to that shortly.
Human Rights Watch has stated that the Indian Government have not fully restored freedom of speech and association since the revocation of article 370 of the constitution in Jammu and Kashmir. It said in its July 2024 report:
“The Indian security forces continue to carry out repressive policies including arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings, and other serious abuses.”
Many of these violations are enabled by legislation such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act 1990 and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978, which obstruct the normal course of law, impede accountability and jeopardise the right to remedy for victims of human rights violations.
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this debate. The Israeli occupation and annexation is unlawful; I would gently say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we cannot pick and choose where the law applies. There is no exemption for Israel.
I want to ask three questions about settlement goods. Can the Minister set out what legislative and regulatory steps the Government have considered to prohibit UK nationals, companies and financial institutions from conducting business in, or with, illegal Israeli settlements? Has the UK taken any measures aimed at banning trade in settlement goods, such as introducing effective tracking systems, and will the UK ban investments in Israeli companies or banks that are contributing to maintaining Israel’s unlawful occupation?
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberThe scale of humanitarian suffering in Gaza is catastrophic and unacceptable. The UK condemns Israel’s restrictions on aid in the strongest terms. This is a man-made crisis, and Israel must act immediately to address it.
My hon. Friend is right to raise this critically important issue. We have raised the protection of healthcare facilities and the detention of healthcare workers directly with the Israeli Government. The Minister for the middle east, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has specifically raised the detention of Dr Hussam Abu Safiya with both Israel’s deputy Foreign Minister and its ambassador to the UK.
The ceasefire that is apparently being progressed is seemingly the same as the one drafted in May, which was deliberately frustrated by members of the Israeli Government. Sadly, since that time, hostages and those falsely imprisoned have remained captive and so many lives have been lost. No doubt the Minister can assure the public that, should the ceasefire be confirmed, every effort will be made to get aid and supplies to the Palestinians, particularly those in northern Gaza. Does she agree that this means that neither Israeli military activity nor Israeli legislation preventing the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency can be accepted?
There absolutely must be a surge of aid into Gaza; that will be critical after a ceasefire. However, impediments to aid that remain must also be removed.
The issue of UNRWA has been previously discussed in the House. The UK Government’s position is that UNRWA must be able to continue to operate. It is the only organisation with the scale and depth necessary to get that lifesaving aid to people who need it.
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberAny state needs to be viable. We would want to create the conditions for a sovereign Palestinian state that could perform the basic functions of a state, so it would need to be viable. As I am sure the House can tell, I am keen to remain focused on the necessary diplomatic steps to make that happen.
The Minister is a good and knowledgeable man, and his frustration with the process is palpable. For many of us, although we see the steps taken by the UK Government—which should be acknowledged, as they have been different from those under their predecessor—they have been completely and utterly ineffective. The continued repetition of the call for a review and keeping matters under review does not move the dial one jot. Israel is just laughing at the UK. It has no regard for the position here. While we have been home at Christmas celebrating with our children and grandchildren, in Gaza children are being burnt to death as bombs rain down upon them, buildings crush their little bones and six babies die of hypothermia. I am afraid that the Government’s position just does not cut it. I say to my hon. Friend with all sincerity that this continued dancing around and avoiding of clear legal definitions of genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes of extermination is just prevarication. We need to make the position clear. More important than anything, what is now required, and what the British people are asking the Government to do, is to visit sanctions and consequences on the Israeli Government for their flagrant disregard of basic humanitarian law. If we do not, the entire world system will collapse.
I know how diligent, attentive and moved by these issues my hon. Friend has been over a long period. The force of his question is obviously right. We have taken far-reaching steps, yet we are all still seeing images on our televisions and hearing about them on our radio; they remain deeply distressing. We will continue to do everything that we can about a situation that is distressing for the civilians affected and for the region, and in which there are questions about adherence to international humanitarian law.
I say to my hon. Friend that there are a number of other places in my ministerial portfolio where the situation has also remained stuck for a long time, with terrible consequences for civilians, and they need to continue to have our focus as well. The situation in Palestine is appalling, as it has been for a long time in Yemen, Syria and a range of other places. We will continue to make serious efforts. That our efforts do not secure the progress that we want does not mean that we are not making them. We will remain committed to a more safe, more secure middle east and wider region in which the horrific imagery that he described is not burnishing our minds as it is at the moment. We will continue to act.
The fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said, I am answering so many hon. Members’ questions with similar answers over a course of weeks and months is of huge frustration to me. I would want to be making more progress on some of these questions, whether they are on aid access—[Interruption.]. The fact that I have not been able to make progress does not mean that the UK Government are not taking every action we can to try to bring about the ceasefire that we have been calling for since July.