Black History Month
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I am always very pleased to speak in this House during Black History Month. I say that not out of ceremony, but out of conviction. I believe that it matters for black Britons watching today to see this Parliament take time to reflect on our history, our struggle and our contributions. It matters that our story is not confined to footnotes or commemorative months, but recognised as part of the very fabric of British history. Each October, I believe this debate should be on the Order Paper as a matter of course, yet too often it has been absent or dependent on the will of a few determined Members. Let me thank all those involved in ensuring that this debate takes place during Government time.
Many of my colleagues will rightly use this opportunity to honour the giants of black British history—the leaders, thinkers and ordinary people who achieved extraordinary things, often in the face of unimaginable obstacles. I pay tribute to them all, but today I want to use my time differently. I want to speak frankly about why, decades after the civil rights movement and years after Black Lives Matter brought millions to the streets, we still have not tackled racism in this country and beyond. I want to say plainly that we have not tackled racism because we have not fully committed to repairing the inequality we had a part in creating. We have not committed to reparatory justice.
In 2020, after the murder of George Floyd, more than 240,000 people signed a petition calling on the Government to include Britain’s role in colonialism and enslavement in the national curriculum. It became one of the most signed petitions ever submitted to Parliament and that moment felt like a turning point. I sat in the debate that followed. I remember the sense of hope that at last we would be honest about our past, honest about the empire that built Britain’s wealth and honest about the lives it destroyed, because hundreds of thousands of British people wanted it. Yet five years on, and 39 years after Black History Month was founded in the UK, very little has changed. Britain’s colonial past is still treated as an optional topic, not a foundational one. Black British history is still squeezed into one month and often taught only by those teachers who go above and beyond, using their own time and resources.
Many young people grow up learning in history a lot about our monarchy, but not about our empire. The history of our monarchy is important—it speaks of how our country came to be. Some might be surprised to hear that I am a fan of the odd period drama. Those stories are very interesting, but it has to be wrong that some never hear about Queen Nanny of the Maroons, Mary Prince, Olaudah Equiano, the Bristol bus boycotts, or even the role of the British state in the enslavement of millions. That speaks to the fact that our country does not want to engage with these issues. Young people are taught about industrial innovation, but not about who paid the human cost for that progress. That cherry-picking of what to teach points to something more worrying, because we also miss out on learning about other working-class struggles, such as the miners’ strikes and the suffragettes —those stories that educate us on the power we hold as citizens and the things people have done to challenge injustice. We cannot say that this nation is facing its history when it still refuses to teach it fully.
We have talked a lot about patriotism recently. Let me be clear: I do not believe that patriotism is about pretending that our history was glorious and benign; patriotism is about being honest enough to confront the truth, because only a nation unafraid of the truth can hope to build a just future. I believe that in order to stand firm in pride and power, as the theme of this Black History Month asks, we must address these issues, because where is the pride in not recognising you are wrong, and where is the power in not tackling global injustices that have failed to be repaired?
Last night, I had the honour of delivering the National Union of Journalists’ Claudia Jones memorial lecture. Claudia Jones, the journalist, activist and mother of the Notting Hill carnival, taught us something very powerful. She taught us that the struggle against racism can never be separated from the struggle against imperialism. She wrote:
“Imperialism is the root cause of racism. It is the ideology which upholds colonial rule and exploitation.”
That is not just a historical observation; it is a diagnosis of the present. When far-right politics rises across Europe, when migrants are scapegoated and when global inequalities widen, Claudia Jones’s words feel prophetic. She understood that racism at its root is not about personal prejudice or isolated ignorance. Too often, we try to reduce it to the “few bad apples” argument. Racism is structural. It is the operating system of an economic and political order built through empire that exists today. It is the logic that justified, and still justifies, stolen land, stolen labour and stolen wealth. It is the logic that said that some people are disposable so that others might prosper.
Racism did not appear by accident. It has no factual basis. Racism was engineered. That is why I say that we cannot dismantle racism without repair. If racism is built into the economic foundations of this country—in land, in labour and in capital—then the remedy must also be material. We cannot tackle a problem without getting to its roots. It was not enough for us to express deep regret and other platitudes. It was not enough for us to change a few names and statues and call it progress. We must repair the harm structurally, economically, culturally and politically. That is the very heart of the global movement for reparations.
This year, the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations, which I chair, hosted the third annual UK reparations conference. We saw hundreds of activists, scholars, lawyers and community leaders come together from across the world and the message was clear: the demand for repair is no longer a fringe issue; it is a moral and political necessity. And yet in Britain we still refuse to apologise for our role in enslavement and colonialism. We refuse to return stolen artefacts. We even refuse to return human remains, denying dignity even in death. We refuse to engage meaningfully with reparatory justice. Even last year, when the Commonwealth nations called for a mere discussion on reparatory justice, we said no. What does that sound like, given the history of the Commonwealth? Our country has not apologised, it has not repaired and it has not made amends.
But the tide is turning and young people are asking the right questions. Institutions are beginning to confront their own archives. The debate can no longer be buried or delayed. We have to be clear that reparations are not only about money. How could they possibly be? If people think the call for reparations is a call for cash, they have not been listening. How can it be? What amount of money could ever really compensate for what happened, which was one of the greatest crimes in human history: enslavement, trafficking, genocide, ecocide, widespread theft and everything in between. Reparations are about truth, restitution and transforming relationships between nations, between communities and between the past and the present. Reparations are about acknowledging that Britain became one of the richest nations on Earth not just through industry and ingenuity, but through the extraction of human life and labour from Africa, the Caribbean, Asia and beyond.
When enslavement was abolished, it was not the formerly enslaved who received compensation; it was the enslavers. They were paid the modern equivalent of billions of pounds for the loss of human property. British taxpayers, including black Britons, finished paying off that debt in 2015. That is not distant history; it is the present. It is certainly the present in my taxpaying history. Meanwhile, the descendants of those who endured generations of forced labour received nothing—to this day, not even an apology. Their names were often erased from the story of their own liberation. Freedom has been paraded as a gift. When I talk about reparations, I, the descendant of enslaved and colonised people, am often told that I should be grateful that Britain abolished the slave trade. I am proud of the role that this country, my country, played in the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade, but that alone cannot be absolution. I am sorry, but I cannot see how, just because an arsonist feels guilty, we would absolve them for starting the fire in the first place.
The injustice I speak of did not end with that emancipation. It continued through colonial rule, through the Berlin conference that carved up Africa without a single African present, through artificial borders and economic dependency, and through the extraction of resources that continues to this day. It means that at the UN in 2025, African nations still have to get up and ask to be included in the UN Security Council, despite the fact that African and Caribbean nations make up the majority of the countries in the world. When people ask, “Why reparations?”, I ask in return, “Why did we ever think that freedom without repair was enough, or that it was freedom at all?”
In this Parliament, I am proud to be part of the legacy of the late, great Bernie Grant, who stood in this very Chamber and called for reparations when few dared to. Without truth, there can be no justice. Without justice, there can be no healing. That is why the all-party parliamentary group believes we need a commission for truth and reparatory justice. The commission would not simply investigate the past; it would examine how legacies of that past are alive in the present in the racial wealth gap, health inequalities, educational disparities and the policing of black communities.
None of these patterns is accidental. They were built, and because they were built, they can and must be dismantled, but that will happen only if we have the political courage to do so. To do it, we have to move away from this lazy, reductionist style of politics, which often talks about what we cannot do instead of talking about what we can do.
Every major institution in this country—banks, universities, the monarchy, museums—carries traces of wealth extracted through colonialism and enslavement. The evidence is in the bank ledgers and shipping records and in the foundations of buildings across this city. That history does not belong in footnotes; it belongs in how we shape our policies today.
No individual group needs permission to demand justice. The call for reparations is grounded in international law, in human rights and in the moral truth that those who profit from crimes against humanity have a duty to repair them. This is not about guilt or unpicking the past, as I have been accused of doing previously—it is about responsibility. It is about not division, but healing.
However, healing cannot begin when the truth has not been told. That is why the teaching of black history as British history is in itself reparatory. If we are serious about tackling racism, we have to be serious about this repair. Racism is about not just words or attitudes, but material conditions—who owns wealth, who holds power, and who has access to housing, healthcare, safety and dignity. Racism persists because the harm has never been repaired.
The call for reparations has survived centuries because it speaks to something beyond politics. It speaks to the human need for recognition, justice and dignity, and to the possibility of renewal—not just for the nations that were wronged, but for Britain itself, because black Britons are part of that story. I could be the richest person in this country and rise to the highest office in this land, but I understand that I will never escape racism; by its very nature, until there is justice for every single person who looks like me, nothing will change in that regard.
Now the world is changing and our place in it is precarious if we do not change our attitude, which still feels rooted in empire. I want our country—my country—to be looked on with respect and admiration, not because it never got anything wrong, but because we had the courage to put what we got wrong right.
Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Melanie Ward
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I will come on to say more about that issue.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will be aware of the Global Sumud Flotilla, which is the largest maritime mission to Gaza and includes civilians from across the globe, two of whom are constituents of mine. This aid mission is entirely legal, non-violent and presents no threat to the Israeli Government or Israeli citizens. However, we have already seen attacks on it, and we know from past experience that it may face further attacks. Does she agree that it should be the primary duty of this Government to protect British citizens, including those participating in the flotilla? If so, will she join me in calling on the Minister to outline exactly what the Government will do to secure the safety of our citizens?
Iran-Israel Conflict
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are asking all UK nationals in Israel to register their presence, so that we know that they are there and can update them in what is a very fast-moving situation. I also reassure him that we have sent a rapid force of diplomats to the border to facilitate exit. As he will understand, the airspace is closed, so there is no way of leaving by commercial flight, but there are routes, particularly out of Jordan, and we will do all we can to facilitate that.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The Chancellor confirmed yesterday that UK military assets could potentially be used to help defend Israel. We are sending military aircraft to the middle east, and the Prime Minister has not ruled out them being used to help Israel. The Minister for the Armed Forces recently confirmed in response to a written question that the UK is training Israel Defence Forces personnel on UK-based training courses. Does the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that through bolstering Israel’s military in this way we are actively demonstrating our support for one side in this conflict, and does he therefore accept that this undermines our calls for a diplomatic solution and de-escalation?
Mr Lammy
It is important to state that the UK did not participate and is not participating in Israeli strikes, but we do have a proper role to play in regional security. My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on operational defence and intelligence matters, except to pray in aid the defence bilateral relationships that we have in the region.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
I thank the hon. Member for that important question. We take these issues very seriously. Our arms export licensing criteria and systems are among the toughest in the world, and we work very carefully to ensure that the words that the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and I say at this Dispatch Box are followed all the way through, in every decision that we make. In some cases, it is absolutely obvious from the licence that the exports could not be used in the way that the hon. Member describes—for example, components for submarines cannot be used in Gaza—but we do take enormous care over these questions.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
A noble Friend from the other place reminded me of a conversation that she overheard me having with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) in October 2023. Israel had begun bombing the civilian population in the Gaza strip, and my hon. Friend asked, “When will they say something?” As I often do, I said the first thing that came to my mind: “When they level it to the ground.” I have to ask the Minister if that is the change that we are waiting for, because I have asked what our red lines are, and it seems that we have none. History will not look kindly on those who perpetuate genocide, or those who assist it, whether through the sale of arms or through sheer inaction. Does the Minister accept that this is now us? The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) pointed to actions that we might take; I have to ask: why are these actions not good enough for the people of Palestine? How many more people will have to die before we do something?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend asks me if I accept that this is us; I do not accept that this is us. We are in a very serious disagreement with the Israeli Government about the conduct of the conflict. That disagreement is ongoing, and is strongly felt. Their policy on Gaza and the west bank is not the British Government’s policy. Not only have I condemned it, but the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have done so repeatedly. I hear the frustration of the House about further measures, but let us accept that the British and Israeli Governments disagree profoundly on this question, that the disagreement between us is deeply felt, and that British policy is as it is, and is not what the Netanyahu Government are doing.
Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
Israel remains an open society with a vibrant press, who were reporting on this incident as it happened. I hope that this proves to be an aberration, and that Members of this House will be able to go back to travelling to Israel with no thought of detention or being returned.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
For me, the most important aspect of our country is not our flags or even our institutions, but our people, and our people—the elected representatives of thousands of British people—have been treated with contempt. My understanding was that we are Britain and you do not do this to us. There is, at least, consensus on this side of the House that this is not how we should expect to be treated by our allies.
While I welcome the Minister’s statement, I still cannot understand where our red lines were when thousands were slaughtered, when aid was prevented from entering Gaza, or when international law or the ceasefire was broken. Can he explain where those red lines are, and how, when Britain and Parliament have been insulted, we can continue to sell arms to Israel?
Mr Falconer
I have talked about the position relating to arms sales, and I will not rehearse the arguments that were heard in the Chamber so recently. I agree with my hon. Friend that we all represent communities across the United Kingdom. I believe that in travelling to Israel those two hon. Members were trying to reflect the earnest concerns of their constituents, and I encourage all hon. Members, whenever they are able to do so, to travel to the places where their constituents cannot.
Oral Answers to Questions
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Doughty
We continue to engage with a range of figures in Georgia. We continue to engage with all those who seek a Euro-Atlantic path for Georgia, which is defined in its constitution and is the wish of its people. We will continue to work closely with European counterparts on the issue.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
The slave trade was abhorrent. We recognise its horrific impacts and the ongoing strength of feeling, but there have been no such discussions. As the Foreign Secretary made clear to the Foreign Affairs Committee after the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting,
“There was no discussion about reparation and money. The Prime Minister and I were absolutely clear that we will not be making cash transfers and payments to the Caribbean”.
We are focused on working with our Caribbean partners to tackle the most pressuring challenges of today and the future, including security, growth and climate change.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Last week saw the 38th ordinary session of the African Union Assembly of Heads of State and Government, the topic of which was “Justice for Africans and people of African descent through reparations”. Caribbean Heads of State were also present, and we know that the Caribbean Community, or CARICOM, has long engaged in discussions on reparative justice. Whether or not we participate in these discussions, they will continue to happen. Does the Minister accept that the world and its power structures are changing? In our turbulent post-Brexit reality, we need allies and friends, but we will not even say that we are sorry. We would be foolish to think that we are not deeply resented for that. Is it not better for the UK to engage in these discussions and ensure that we play a constructive role in addressing the enduring legacies of slavery and colonialism?
Anneliese Dodds
We recognise that this is an issue of enduring concern to many. We listen to views from our Caribbean partners on the full range of bilateral issues, but our policy on reparations is clear: we do not pay them. We are determined to work together for the future.
Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent 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
Hamish Falconer
Do the Government accept that we have international obligations? Indeed we do. I have set out this afternoon how we would discharge them in relation to the ICC; I have also set out the view that we take on the ICJ process. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure that there is proper international justice that all abide by. We are one of the ICC’s major funders: we commit £13.2 million a year to ensure that the ICC can function properly. In everything that this Government do, we are trying to ensure the international rule of law, and we will continue to do so.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The UK has a responsibility not just to respect the independence of international courts, but to take active steps to promote compliance with international obligations. When nations or leaders have been accused of committing war crimes, the UK has held itself up as a global leader in placing sanctions. It is unconscionable that in this situation we are yet to stop all sales of arms to Israel. If Israel is accused of committing war crimes, does the continued sale of any arms to Israel not make the UK potentially complicit? Given the gravity of the situation, will the Minister further clarify why he cannot comment on sanctions, or indeed on the other steps that the Government are planning or willing to take to make clear the UK’s condemnation of the continued slaughter of civilians in Gaza?
Hamish Falconer
Let me comment on arms sales, as they have been raised again. I will not rehearse the arguments about the F-35 exemption. In relation to the arms that are licensed to be sold to Israel, the category that has been suspended is the category that posed a risk of being involved in breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza. Those weapons, we also believe, would be the weapons at issue in the west bank and in Lebanon. There is a second category of weapons that are for resale elsewhere, which is not relevant to events in Israel. There is a third category of weapons that are used either for defensive purposes or for purposes with which nobody in this House would disagree: body armour and helmets for aid workers going into Gaza, for example.
I say gently to colleagues across the House that there is not, in the rest of the arms sales, some solution to the dilemma that faces us. The suspension of arms sales has been done carefully and has been aimed at the potential breach of international humanitarian law. It has been reached carefully and judiciously, including in relation to the F-35. That remains the position.
Israel-Hamas War: Diplomacy
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend will know that the Government have been clear that measures need to be taken, and we have used our own military assets in this respect, to make sure that the conflict does not widen. We have sent a very clear warning to Iran in that respect, along with our allies, and he may rest assured that we continue to watch this issue with extreme care.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
In response to an earlier question, the Minister talked of dangerous regional escalation and the scale of the loss of life. How do his Government hope to prevent either, and support a just and lasting peace, without calling for a ceasefire? How can they claim to support a two-state solution when they do not recognise the state of Palestine? One plus zero has never equalled two.
Mr Mitchell
It is, I think, the policy of both sides of the House that we should not pursue the possibility of a ceasefire, because there is no possibility, for very trenchant reasons that have been set out. The hon. Lady is, however, right to point to the political horizon, to ensure that we take advantage, as soon as the moment is plausible, of building a political track. As part of that, we are looking to build Palestinian state capacity. We know that Gaza should be under Palestinian control when this is over. Hamas has no place in a future of Gaza and we must never allow them ever to be able to entrench themselves in the civilian population again.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Bell Ribeiro-Addy ExcerptsMonday 27th June 2022
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 View all Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
This Government are making a habit of breaking the law. Only last Friday, the Home Secretary was found to be in breach of the law, and not for the first time, in relation to the Equality Act 2010 and the mistreatment of refugees. Overnight, we learned that the Prime Minister intends to be in breach of World Trade Organisation rules in order to slap tariffs on steel. Here we are today with the Foreign Secretary telling us earlier that this Government will rip up the Northern Ireland protocol that they negotiated and voted for. This is clearly another breach of the law and a shameful hat-trick from the holders of three of the foremost senior offices of Government.
The Conservatives can keep trying to spin it however they like, but the bottom line is that the withdrawal treaty is an international treaty, and the unilateral abrogation of such a treaty, or any part of it, is a breach of international law. In addition to undermining any reputation for straight dealing the Government may still have, this also tarnishes the reputation of the country. It drives a coach and horses through the entire agreement that we have made with the European Union and it undermines the Good Friday agreement, with all the potentially serious consequences that that entails. It insults our intelligence when the Foreign Secretary claims that this is to protect the Good Friday agreement; it does the very opposite and she knows it.
The potential consequences of the Bill include, but are not limited to, the possibility of an all-out trade war with the EU, no trade deal with the United States, severe disruption to our trade when the economy is already suffering from Conservative economic mismanagement, and instigating political turmoil once more on the streets of Northern Ireland. The claims that the economy in Northern Ireland is suffering as a result of the protocol are completely false. North-south trade in Ireland is actually booming. It is the economy here that is suffering, because of Brexit. Ministers know full well that the majority of people in Northern Ireland voted against Brexit, by a much bigger margin than the Vote Leave campaign achieved, and they continue to elect a large majority of MPs and MLAs who oppose Brexit and support the protocol—but then this Government and their predecessors have never been over-concerned with democracy in Ireland. The reality is that the claim on which the Conservatives fought the election—that they would get Brexit done—was a great deception. Six years after the referendum vote, the Conservatives have gone through three Prime Ministers, and may soon be on their fourth, but still have not got Brexit done; we would not be here if they had.
The Foreign Secretary called herself a patriot and said that her party was the party of the Union, and firmly in belief and support of the Union, but the Conservative party can’t be serious. We have a disastrous Brexit that they are now trying to fiddle with, a shoddy Government generally, shocking legislation that is just making nationalists’ arguments for them, hostility to greater devolution, and ignoring of the views of people across the nations of this country. This Government are not a defender of the Union; they are probably the biggest threat to the Union of the United Kingdom that there has been in recent years. They are unwilling to face reality or to come clean with the people of this country. They are willing to risk peace in Ireland, to further damage living standards across the UK and to break the law in order to cling to office. To paraphrase one of their own, Winston Churchill, never in the field of international relations has so much been put at risk to the detriment of so many for the interests of so few. If it is not already abundantly clear, I am firmly against this ridiculous Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Lady has already spoken. She has forgotten. That really confused me—I am counting the people. I admire her enthusiasm. Most unusually, some Members who had indicated to Mr Deputy Speaker earlier that they wished to speak are not in the Chamber and appear not to wish to speak. Therefore, most unusually, I am going to extend the time limit, at least for a short while, to seven minutes.
Shireen Abu Aqla
Bell Ribeiro-Addy Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vicky Ford
It is important that voices from across the world have condemned this awful deed.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
This is not the first time this has happened; nor will it be the last. Under occupation, Palestinians’ human rights are abused, and as we have seen, they cannot even bury their dead with dignity. Does the Minister understand that until we have a lasting peace, we will not tackle the situation at its root? Does she understand that although the UK has committed to a two-state solution, we cannot have two states if only one is recognised? Perhaps she would like to reconsider her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) and tell us when exactly she will recognise the Palestinian state.
Vicky Ford
It is clear that unilateral recognition, by itself, will not end the occupation. We need the parties to come to talks and to work towards peace.