Situation in the Red Sea

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman has great experience and he is right to say that Government time signals the importance that the Government give to the business they bring to this House. While the Backbench Business Committee does an important and useful job, it is Government time that matters. Since the Defence Secretary has been in post, we have not had that general debate on defence, and we should. We have not had a debate on Ukraine for four months, and we should, certainly ahead of the bloody two-year anniversary next month of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

We have also not had a debate since 7 October on Israel and Palestine, which is extraordinary. There is an irony that, had we gone ahead with the original debate on international relations, that could have been a subject for debate, but we are restricted by this debate. It is clear why the situation in the Red sea is a priority, but that is probably also a priority, which the Government might wish to take up, and which I have raised previously with the Leader of the House.

[John Healey]

At the risk of sounding a bit like the shadow Leader of the House responding to a business question, my hon. Friend is right. He is very experienced and I am sure he will find a way, as the Prime Minister did yesterday in his statement about the Red sea action, to talk more widely about Israel and Palestine without testing Mr Deputy Speaker’s patience too far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The freedom of navigation, maritime security and upholding international law are fundamental principles, and this country, along with international partners, has a duty to uphold them. We have heard about the economic consequences. The disruption caused by what is happening in the Red sea affects peace not only there but throughout the region.

As the Defence Secretary and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said, there are complex and historical issues that will need political solutions in due course. These are long-standing disputes with complex origins, whether that be the interference of colonial powers in the past; communal, religious or ethnic rivalries; or the struggle for oil and other natural resources. I do not claim to be an expert, but there are certainly parallels with what happened in the 1960s, with the North Yemen civil war and the Aden emergency—UK forces occupied Aden from 1839 to 1967—and many of the issues have ancient origins.

However, I add a note of caution. I know exactly what has been said by many speakers so far in relation to conflating the actions of the Houthis in Yemen with what is happening in Israel and Palestine. Nobody should be so naive as to think that the motives of the Houthis are humanitarian or unselfish. As the Defence Secretary said, the Houthis are entirely opportunistic in what they are doing, but that is not necessarily the way that it is seen on the Arab street, or by our constituents, so we must address that issue head on. The priority given to dealing with attacks on shipping in the Red sea should also, as many of my constituents say to me, be given to dealing with attacks on human life in Gaza and wherever else, including in Yemen.

Let us look at what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions. If I understood him correctly, he set a number of tests that had to be met before there could be a ceasefire in Gaza: all hostages should be released—presumably he means Israeli and Palestinian hostages; Hamas should disarm and disappear from Gaza, so as not to be in a position to threaten Israel or anyone else; and the Palestinian Authority should take over the role of governance there. Nobody would be more pleased than I if those three criteria were met. Indeed, I am sure that hostage release and swaps will be part of any ceasefire, even a temporary one, but how realistic is it to expect that Hamas will disappear overnight or that, to use their own phraseology, the Palestinian Authority will ride into Gaza on the back of Israeli tanks? I do not believe that that is a realistic assessment of where we need to go before a ceasefire occurs.

Today, the Prime Minister was asked by the leader of the Scottish National party—this question is often asked of the Government—whether he believed that war crimes had been committed in Gaza. That is not a difficult question. Yes, it is absolutely true that there are restrictions on journalists and international observers going into Gaza, but there is enough coming out of Gaza to see that it is not an exhaustive list. None the less, many leading international jurists have seen deprivation of life, collective punishment, arbitrary detention, denial of basic services including healthcare, forced displacement and ethnic cleansing. Simply to reply, as any Government spokesman does, that Israel should comply with international humanitarian law, is not sufficient. The question is: is Israel complying in that way?

Today, I noted that a 200-page opinion piece, published by Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights but authored by independent jurists, found that in Gaza, persecution—a crime against humanity—had been committed more intensely since 7 October, but that it goes back to 2007, when the siege of Gaza began. If the Government’s position is to be credible they must address those events. What is happening in Gaza is extraordinary: 1% of the population—25,000 people—have been killed in three months under the most horrific circumstances. We heard the shadow Defence Secretary describe that in his opening remarks, and there are strong parallels with what is going on.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

On international law, let us face it: international humanitarian law is the last resort, when other things have gone wrong. Perhaps the side that we politicians can take is that of morality. What is the right thing to do? What is the humanitarian thing to do? What should we do about human misery? That is why the immediate bilateral ceasefire is so important. There is a choice. The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court will be looking at the war crimes, and it is right to let the courts do their job, but the Government could also have made a moral judgment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Andy Slaughter]

I think I always agree with the hon. Member on this issue, if not on others. She has clear personal knowledge of it, and is under particular strain because her extended family are in Gaza. I pay tribute to her ability to maintain the objectivity that she has just shown in her comments.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

We have just had a debate in Westminster Hall on human rights, and Gaza came up. During the debate it was revealed that the Foreign Office had sought evidence from its legal advisers on the legality of actions that have been taken by Israel, going back to 10 November. We did not receive a satisfactory answer from the Minister responding to that debate, but should the Government not publish that advice? I also understand that since the new Foreign Secretary arrived he has asked for a review of that legal advice.

[Andy Slaughter]

I also agree with my hon. Friend.

The deaths that continue to occur daily in Gaza have so far been mostly the result of military action, but we have reached a point where the number of deaths through privation and disease is overtaking them. There is a strong parallel with what happened in Yemen, where about 150,000 people—mainly civilians—have been killed over the course of the civil war that began in 2014. At least another 200,000 have died through disease and privation as a consequence of the civil war, and we are at that tipping point in Gaza. Yes, those are higher numbers, but they are from a much longer period. Many of the same arguments apply, and I do not think any Member present would not wish to see an end to the suffering in both Yemen and Gaza. We need a ceasefire and an end to hostilities, and pressure from the UK alongside partners could play a much bigger role in achieving that.

Secondly, we need aid and reconstruction, but that requires a more permanent peace, because many donors, including EU and UK donors, who have contributed to the reconstruction in the past have seen the money wasted as a result of further military action. Better governance is also needed, and support for civil society. One of the most cynical things that has happened since the terrible, tragic events of 7 October—we all feel for the people of Israel for what they suffered then—is that the response has been not just to go after Hamas but to destroy civilian neighbourhoods and civil society. Destroying law courts, destroying the Parliament, and destroying the records office appears designed to make Gaza ungovernable. That has to be addressed as well.

One could make exactly the same points in relation to Yemen. These are two of the great catastrophes going on in the world. There may be points where we do not want to link the two, but there are clear points where we do. What puts Gaza in a different category than Yemen, is that we are dealing with occupation. Following his statement yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister when the UK will recognise a Palestinian state. Unsurprisingly, he gave an answer that will be familiar to everyone present, and said that

“we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that best serves the peace process.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 166.]

That time is now, or nearly now, because it is impossible to have serious negotiations towards peace unless they are between two sovereign states, notwithstanding conditions in Gaza and, increasingly, conditions in the west bank as well.

Let us not pretend that the recognition of a Palestinian state would put Israel and Palestine on an even keel, but without it as a precondition of the negotiations, they simply will not get off the ground. I hope we see that change in position. There is strong support not just for our military, but for the diplomatic initiatives that the UK is doing in the middle east.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I have given the hon. Member a lot of latitude, as he is focused on one aspect, but the debate is on the situation in the Red sea. If he could direct his attention towards that subject, I would be extremely grateful.

[Andy Slaughter]

I should have taken your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, rather than the advice of the shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), at the beginning of the debate. You interrupt me at an appropriate point, because I am concluding my remarks. There is strong support from all sides, but we need to go further. Britain’s historical responsibility in the region requires us to make that additional diplomatic effort.

Israel and Palestine

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The South Africans are entitled under the rules to refer the matter to the International Court of Justice in the way that they have and, as I have repeatedly said, there will be different views across the House on whether it is helpful to do so at this stage. In respect of what my right hon. and learned Friend says about South Africa, South Africa is a pluralist democracy and there are many different voices that come out of it. Britain has a close, deep and abiding historical relationship with South Africa and we give our advice to the South African Government whenever we have the opportunity to do so.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister says Israeli military action should be targeted on Hamas leaders and operatives. He knows better than anyone that it is not. It disproportionately kills civilians, including children, journalists and health care and aid workers. What steps are the Government taking to restrain Israel from breaking international law, and will he concede that ending trade with illegal settlements is, as a matter of fact and law, unrelated to boycott, divestment and sanctions?

[Mr Mitchell]

In respect of the discussions to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I can assure him that the British Government hold those discussions all the time. He will know that the Prime Minister has spoken to Prime Minister Netanyahu at least four times and met him in Israel towards the end of October. He has met President Herzog, the ruler of Qatar, King Abdullah, President al-Sisi, António Guterres, President Mahmoud Abbas and Mohammed bin Salman from Saudi Arabia. Those arguments and discussions are going on, and above all we make the point that people must abide by international humanitarian law.

Israel and Gaza

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

In order to give an answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, I need to know the full facts, and I very much hope that the full facts will become available before too long.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The agenda of the Netanyahu Government is to save him from jail, wreak revenge on all Gazans for the crimes of Hamas, and recreate the Nakba in the occupied territories. The UK Government’s refusal to call for a ceasefire gives cover to this. How many tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians must be killed, and how many millions made refugees, starved or terrorised, before this Government call for it to stop, and to stop now?

[Mr Mitchell]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is the Government’s position; we are not providing cover for anything. We are insistent that international humanitarian law should be accepted and respected, and we will do everything we can to get to the position of a sustainable ceasefire, but, as he will accept, we are not there yet. In the meanwhile, it is important to press for opportunities to get humanitarian aid and support into Gaza, to help people who are in a terrible position.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with his counterpart in Israel on the number of civilian deaths in Gaza.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with his counterpart in Israel on the number of civilian deaths in Gaza.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

Britain has increased planned assistance to Palestinian civilians to £60 million, and has delivered over 74 tonnes of aid. The recent pauses in fighting were a welcome opportunity to get hostages out and aid in. We know that more is needed: more fuel, increased humanitarian access and assistance into Gaza, and compliance with international humanitarian law.

[Andy Slaughter]

Did the Minister see the analysis recently published in the respected Israeli newspaper Haaretz that the proportion of civilian deaths in Gaza is significantly higher than the average civilian death toll in all conflicts around the world during the 20th century? Does that not give the lie to any claim that Israel is avoiding civilian deaths, and as the death toll in Gaza approaches 20,000, is it not now time for the whole international community—including the UK—to support a ceasefire that protects civilian lives?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman will know the importance that the Government and Opposition Front Benchers attach to saving civilian lives, and will know that Britain has made it absolutely clear to the authorities in Israel that we expect them to abide by international humanitarian law and understand and accept the rules of war. He will equally know that the unprecedented figures he refers to follow on the back of an unprecedented attack by terrorists on 7 October, a pogrom in which more Jewish people were murdered than at any time since 1945 in the holocaust.

Israel and Palestine

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

During the business statement last Thursday, I asked the Leader of the House whether we could have a full day’s debate on the Israel-Gaza war. I do not know whether the Minister has had a communication—I know that the Leader of the House is assiduous about such things—but perhaps he will be able to tell us, when responding, whether that will be granted early in the new year. It is frankly very surprising that we have not had one. I am sure that, if the Government will not grant it, the Backbench Business Committee may do so. I thank the petitioners not only for the 600,000 signatures on the three petitions but for achieving what the Government have not achieved, which is to allow us to have a substantive debate on this subject for the first time. If my maths is right, 2,773 of those signatures come from my constituents: that is substantially less than the number of emails that I have received from constituents on this matter—by a hundred to one, literally—calling for a ceasefire.

[Steve McCabe in the Chair]

The first petition reminds us that breaches of international law are nothing new in the Israel-Gaza dispute. Seventy-five years ago, the Nakba saw the displacement of 750,000 Palestinians. That is a crime in international law. Fifty-five years ago, settlement building began, and it continues apace; indeed, it has accelerated.

The second petition deals with the issue of blockade. Again, blockade is nothing new: Gaza has been blockaded for 16 years and, for that reason, it is still regarded in international law as occupied. Clearly, what is happening now—almost totally to shut off aid, or to have very inadequate amounts of it entering Gaza—is a form of collective punishment and, again, a breach of international law. We have displacement of almost the entire 2 million population of Gaza, and we have bombing on an indiscriminate scale—carpet bombing—that is destroying not only lives but much of the civilian infrastructure. That is why I believe that the third petition is right to call for a ceasefire.

Earlier in the main Chamber, I asked the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), why Britain had abstained in the vote on the United Nations Security Council resolution. As I understand it, he said that there was a lack of condemnation of Hamas and that the Government are against a ceasefire per se. I think we would all join him in wishing that the UN would speak loudly, as all parties in this country have, in condemning the atrocities of Hamas, including the hostage-taking and the massacre on 7 October, which are, again, crimes against humanity. However, that does not invalidate the UN Security Council resolution, and my response to the reasons given for opposing a ceasefire—namely, that it will not be observed by either party—is that there are precedents for ceasefires happening. The pause that we had recently was a type of ceasefire, which was observed by both sides. Frankly, I do not see anything wrong with calling for a ceasefire. I think that the more voices that are added to those calls, the better, and the UK’s voice would be a powerful one.

Why cannot we call for a ceasefire when it appears that breaches of international law are happening? Certainly, prima facie that is the case. I hope that this country, as an upholder of international law, would do that. The fact that we are approaching 20,000 deaths, most of them deaths of civilians, and the fact that half of the housing in Gaza has been destroyed show that these are, at best, negligent actions by the Israelis, that they are indiscriminate and that the results are atrocious.

I visited Gaza just after Operation Cast Lead; I have seen what an Israeli ground invasion means. I saw white phosphorus on the ground, I saw hospitals that had been shelled and I saw families who had lost multiple members through bombing. And I also saw the destruction of civilian infrastructure. Therefore, I say to the Minister that when he responds to the debate, he needs to deal with these issues, including the need for a ceasefire, and he must come up with a more credible response on behalf of the UK Government, because at the moment all we are seeing is multiple deaths of civilians happening on a daily basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

As I have already stated and will state again, it is vital that all sides comply with international humanitarian law. Israel must take every possible step to minimise harm, and it is subject to international law like everyone else. It must also do more to stop settler violence and hold those responsible to account; we raised that directly with the Israeli Government. Indeed, UK Ministers, including the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, have pressed those points in all engagements with their Israeli counterparts very recently. We want to see a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.

I turn to the petition on aid for Gaza. We continue to urge the Israeli Government to allow the immediate, unimpeded and safe access of lifesaving fuel, electricity and food. Palestinian civilians should not suffer the consequences of Hamas’s brutality. As the Foreign Secretary made clear, the agreement on 22 November to pause hostilities was a crucial step toward addressing the humanitarian emergency in Gaza. The pause provided an important opportunity for food, fuel and other lifesaving equipment to enter Gaza, including from the UK, via Egypt. The UK has provided 74 tonnes of aid to Gaza, including blankets, sleeping mats and medical provisions, which are being distributed by the United Nations. I should add that the Foreign Secretary announced an additional £30 million of humanitarian assistance on 24 November, which triples our existing aid budget for the Occupied Palestinian Territories in this financial year. Of course, that will not be enough to meet the immediate needs of the population. We have pressed Israel to open other land border crossings, such as Kerem Shalom, and we hope that that will open very soon.

We continue to work with the United Nations, the Palestine Red Crescent Society and the International Committee of the Red Cross to improve the humanitarian situation. We take seriously Israel’s concerns about the stockpiling of aid by Hamas terrorists, but that does not negate the need for such aid to reach those who need it inside Gaza. We are working with the UN to ensure that safeguards and robust processes are in place to ensure that aid is used only for humanitarian and civilian purposes.

I turn to ceasefires. As the Prime Minister has said, there is no scenario in which Hamas can be allowed to control Gaza again. That is why we are not calling for a general ceasefire, which would allow Hamas to regroup and entrench their position. I am pleased to say that the Government’s position is shared by the Opposition Front Bench. Instead, we are focused on urging respect for international law, alleviating human suffering and, hugely importantly, conflict resolution.

We remain committed to a two-state solution. Both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to live in peace and security. We agree with the United States that Gaza should ultimately be under Palestinian control, with the Palestinian Authority having a long-term role. The Prime Minister has discussed that on several occasions with President Abbas. The Foreign Secretary also discussed how to support the Palestinian Authority, including through training and capacity building, during his regional visit in November. We do not believe that the long-term presence of Israeli security forces in Gaza would be of benefit to Israelis or Palestinians. In the short term, the Government welcome November’s hostage and prisoner releases and the pause in fighting, which allowed for the increased flow of fuel and aid, as I have said. We are pressing for further pauses on humanitarian grounds to get more aid in and hostages out.

I conclude by thanking the public and my fellow parliamentarians for an impassioned and sincere debate this afternoon and for their continued engagement on these critical issues.

[Andy Slaughter]

I will keep the Minister a little longer if he has the time. Notwithstanding that, I asked him a question: is his Department likely to sponsor a full-day debate in the main Chamber? Clearly, there is an important issue to be debated about the way Israel is conducting the war and how we achieve peace, but with the degree of settler and IDF violence in the west bank, with the settlement expansion that is going on and with UK components in arms supplies, there are also many other issues around the Israel-Gaza war that need to be debated, so will the Minister give that undertaking?

[Leo Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman asks a valid question. I cannot give that assurance, because of course it is a question for the Leader of the House, but we note that question and I am sure we will relay the request to the Leader of the House and she will give it due consideration. This afternoon demonstrates that there is, understandably, a tremendous level of interest from colleagues, reflective of the profound level of interest shown by the general public.

Israel-Hamas War: Diplomacy

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

Unfortunately, it was not possible to achieve that compromise when it came to negotiating the UN resolution, but the hon. Member may rest assured that in all these matters Britain is a force for good at the UN in trying to achieve the end aim that everyone in this House agrees is required.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Could the Minister clarify whether the UK Government failed to support the UN Security Council resolution because it did not mention Hamas or because they oppose a ceasefire in any event, or both? If the Government have doubts about Israel’s adherence to international humanitarian law, should they not call for a ceasefire observed by all sides until they are persuaded that Palestinian civilians are not subject to collective punishment?

[Mr Mitchell]

It is the plausibility of a ceasefire that informed our decisions on that matter, but on the hon. Member’s specific question, we were unable to support the resolution because it did not make an absolute condemnation of what Hamas did on 7 October.

Beneficial Ownership Registers: Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Yes. Sadly, London has become the jurisdiction of choice for too much of our dirty money. The all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax has been successful—albeit not as much as I would have liked—in achieving changes to economic crime legislation to challenge and start tackling that.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on leading the debate, and more particularly on the forensic and persistent way she has dealt with this issue over so many years. It is clear that London is the centre of much of the wrongdoing in this area. That is not a coincidence; it is because the Government have been permissive. Has she had an indication of whether they are now prepared to back her proposals?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

My hon. Friend is right. I have often said that it is not just this Government who have done that; the Labour Government, in their time, also deregulated to such an extent that they allowed London to become the centre of this activity. I do not feel that the Government are doing all that they can to try to turn that around. I await a future Labour Government, and I will watch Labour Ministers with an eagle eye to ensure that they do that.

The debate is not just about the role of the overseas territories and Crown dependencies in facilitating economic crime; their activities as secrecy jurisdictions are a threat to our national security, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said. The Foreign Affairs Committee said as much in a report on the matter, and as recently as November it called on the Government to ensure that the overseas territories fulfil their commitment, adding that

“there should be no further deadline extensions.”

We know, for example, that between 2008 and 2018, £68 billion flowed out of Russia and into our overseas territories. We are a favourite jurisdiction for receiving Russian-laundered money. We know that individuals who are sanctioned use the overseas territories and Crown dependencies to hide their assets just before sanctioning to prevent those assets from being frozen. Abramovich and Usmanov are two classic examples of that practice.

We know the role of the overseas territories in preventing us from knowing the actual beneficial owner of property in the UK. Over 70% of the properties in the list of those that we know about are owned by companies registered either in the Crown dependencies or the BVI. We still cannot identify the beneficial owners of two thirds of those 70%, because they use trusts to hide their identity, and 85%—more than eight out of 10—of those trust arrangements are based in the three Crown dependencies and the BVI.

Most recently, in the Cyprus papers, which have just been uncovered, we found a direct link between Vladimir Putin and Roman Abramovich, with money going from Abramovich to two men dubbed as “wallets” for Putin—a man whose salary is $100,000, but whose wealth is rumoured to be between $125 billion and $200 billion. The theft of money from the Russian people is facilitated by secrecy jurisdictions such as Cyprus, but also by our own tax havens.

The problem is massive, and the role of our overseas territories and Crown dependencies is central. Baron Cameron of Chipping Norton understood that when he went to Davos in January 2013—over 10 years ago—and warned multinationals to

“wake up and smell the coffee”.

I will give a few more quotes from him. In 2013, he pledged:

“Every one of the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories are going to have an action plan on beneficial ownership”.

He told the overseas territories to rip aside the “cloak of secrecy” by creating public registers of beneficial ownership. In 2014, he wrote to the overseas territories, saying that public registers were

“vital to meeting the urgent challenges of illicit finance and tax evasion.”

In September 2015, he accused them of

“frankly…not moving anywhere near fast enough…if we want to break the business model of people stealing money and hiding it in places where it can’t be seen: transparency is the answer.”

When Lord Cameron launched our UK register in 2016, he said that

“it’s better for us all to have an open system which everyone has access to, because the more eyes that look at this information the more accurate it will be.”

At the anti-corruption summit in May 2016, he said:

“We’ve talked about the need for every country to ultimately reach what I call the gold standard of having a public register of beneficial ownership. And I am clear that I include all the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies.”

Lord Cameron is now in a position to act, and I urge the Minister to tell his boss to do so. When even Nigeria, Ukraine, Albania and Morocco have introduced public registers, why can our tax havens not?

Using the European Court of Justice ruling to delay the implementation of public registers is a convenient but lame excuse. It actually has not deterred Gibraltar. While some countries have closed their registers, others have kept them open. Crown dependencies in particular are acting in a completely dishonourable way. Their role in facilitating economic crime and tax avoidance is indisputable, and their protestations to the contrary are simply untrue. Their behaviour in providing public assurances that they will move towards public registers but claiming that the European court ruling prevents them from doing so is, in my view, unforgivable.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

This Government are on record—I said it in my statement—in condemning settler violence in the west bank, but we must be very clear that this military operation is under way in Gaza because of the terrorist atrocity carried out by Hamas on 7 October. That is the terrible and tragic truth.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Over 15,000 civilians have now been killed in Gaza, and Israel’s military operations have not abated following the pause in fighting. What specific requests are the Government making to their Israeli counterparts to stop the killing? When the Minister says a ceasefire is “premature”, it sounds like a tacit acceptance that the disproportionate and indiscriminate destruction of civilian areas is a legitimate means of Israel pursuing its war aims.

[Leo Docherty]

A ceasefire would only be possible if Hamas had not stated their intent to wipe Israel off the map and to perpetrate another atrocity of the nature of 7 October. We are arguing for a humanitarian pause to allow de-escalation and the further flow of humanitarian aid.

Israel and Hamas: Humanitarian Pause

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right: it is a priority. There is some suggestion that while I have been on my feet in the Chamber, Qatar has announced that the truce will be extended by two days. Obviously we all hope that that is true, and that as a result more hostages will be able to leave.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister is known for his humanitarian instincts. Does he agree that it is unthinkable now to resume the indiscriminate destruction of Gaza and the lives of Palestinian civilians? Is he urging on the Israeli Government the need to find a means of removing the threat from Hamas that does not cost the lives of thousands of women, children and other non-combatants?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with wisdom about the position of civilians. All of us hope that the loss of life among innocent civilians can be minimised, but I would point out to him that the Israeli Government have an absolute right to go after the murderous terrorists of Hamas who perpetrated the dreadful events of 7 October.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Situation

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

UNICEF is one of the most highly respected United Nations organisations and agencies. Britain has consistently been one of the most generous and strong supporters of UNICEF, precisely because of the effectiveness of that organisation. The hon. Lady may rest assured that we will work closely with UNICEF throughout this period, and that we profoundly respect the abilities and reach that UNICEF brings to its work.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Yesterday a mother and five children—all UK citizens in my constituency—finally made it out of Gaza, having experienced sights that no child should witness, literally walking past hundreds of dismembered and decaying bodies to reach safety. If war crimes are committed, they should be investigated. Will the Minister answer the question that he has deftly avoided so far: is there a role for the International Criminal Court in investigating the conduct of all parties to this terrible war?

[Mr Mitchell]

I do not think it fair to say that I was avoiding the question. I was making the point, which I know the hon. Gentleman will understand, that Britain was one of the first countries to support the ICC—it was not supported by Russia, China or America, as I recall—so Britain’s support and enthusiasm for the work of the ICC should not be in doubt.