Israel and Palestine

Debate between Ed Miliband and Calum Miller

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Let me also thank him for sharing the painful history of his family. I know that that will echo with many Jewish families in the UK, including those in my constituency.

Let me strongly associate myself and my party with the Foreign Secretary’s clear statement that robustly challenging the illegal actions of this extremist Israeli Government is compatible both with staunch support for the rights of the states of Israel and Palestine to exist and with resolute support for the rights of British Jews to live free from the scourge of anti-Jewish hatred. For years, Liberal Democrats called for the proscription of the IRGC. We will work across the House to support the rights, freedoms and security of the British Jewish community.

The recent scenes from Palestine should horrify every Member of this House—the abhorrent violence against Palestinians; families, awoken by soldiers breaking down the doors of their homes, evicted; the accelerated annexation of the west bank, spurred on by the extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich; attempts to destroy the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state through E1 settlement construction; and the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Gaza. The two-state solution is being fatally threatened. That is why today’s announcement is greatly welcomed from these Benches, but is also long overdue. Liberal Democrats have called for a trade ban for years, and have asked the Government to declare Israel’s occupation in Palestine unlawful. It is also right that the Government have included services in this ban, with those financing or facilitating settlements now facing legal consequences.

The Foreign Secretary has billed today’s announcement as a reset in our relationship with Israel. This requires a vision for that future relationship. We want a relationship with Israel based on shared liberal values, but that requires the Israeli Government to recognise their obligations under international law, and not ride roughshod over them. The Foreign Secretary supports the role of the International Court of Justice in the determination of war crimes and genocide. Will he explain how the Government are providing resources to allow the ICJ to complete its work in reaching a judgment? I also welcome the clear statement, long overdue, that the Government accept the ICJ’s 2024 opinion that the occupation is unlawful. Will the Foreign Secretary publish the Government’s assessment of the duties that this creates for the UK?

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s candour about the fact that the Government have previously failed to do enough. Today’s measures cannot simply be symbolic; they must be robust, enforceable and sustained for as long as necessary. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us in more detail how enforcement measures would be implemented in response to any violation of these bans? He says that the ban on arms exports will endure as long as the illegal occupation. Will he confirm that that will apply to all arms exports, including F-35 parts? Will he spell out more clearly what he means when he says that the existing global human rights regime will be extended?

Parties on both sides of the House have been united in our support—with international partners—for a two-state solution. It is this outcome that will bring peace, security and stability to the Palestinian and Israeli people. As we approach an autumn of elections in Israel and Palestine, so critical to the future prospects for peace and justice, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that he will insist that the Palestinian Authority hold to the timetable for elections in November, and that they will be free, fair and open to all parties? Before the elections, will he work with international partners to ensure the disarmament of Hamas? Will he also commit himself to conveying clearly and with no ambiguity to the Government of Israel that the UK will stand up against breaches of international law, and that there will be consequences when they occur?

This extremist Israeli Cabinet has repeatedly acted to erase the prospects of a viable state in Palestine. In doing so, it has furthered a pattern of violence and destruction. Today must be the day that the UK says, “Enough is enough.”

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the measures we are announcing today, and I recognise his advocacy on this issue over a sustained period. Let me deal with his questions in turn.

We fully support the work of the ICJ, including in the so-called South Africa case. We have previously submitted to the Court on the question of Myanmar, which I think will help inform some of its deliberations, and we look forward to the ICJ continuing its work.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the ruling of unlawfulness. That is where we have taken a view as a Government that the occupation is unlawful. We concur with the conclusions of the ICJ. It is a matter of principle what we then do across our economic relationships, and today I have announced the measures that we are taking.

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of arms, and I talked in my statement about the double lock. I want to take on his point on the F-35s. To be clear with the House, we stopped providing direct parts to Israel’s F-35 programme in October 2024, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) when he was Foreign Secretary. The only provision we make now is indirectly to the global supply programme. I am afraid that those who say we should stop supplying parts to the global supply chain are actually advocating the downing of the whole programme, which is crucial to our NATO and other allies. I want to be clear about that.

Obviously, our ruling on legality is an important one. We will continue to keep all our responsibilities under review, including in relation to the F-35 programme, but I wanted to set that out for the hon. Gentleman.

We are extending the global human rights regime to international law. We think this will be another important tool that we have to take action, because the sanctions regime did not previously apply to breaches of international humanitarian law. As we set about our sanctions regime for settlements in the occupied territories, this will give us a faster tool to act, and I am very happy for us have discussions about that.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must provide support for reform of the Palestinian Authority, that Hamas must disarm and cannot be part of a future Government in Gaza as part of the 20-point plan and, let us be frank, that we need to accelerate the implementation of the 20-point plan. There was some hope when the 20-point plan was produced but, frankly, the situation in Gaza is unspeakable, and the plan is not being implemented as it should be.

I end by saying to the hon. Gentleman and Members of all parties that I want to work with people across the House who have worked on this issue over a long period, so that we get the legislation right and get our action right. As much as is possible, I think we can be united on this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and Calum Miller

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

GB Energy will create thousands of jobs across the country, including in Aberdeen. Here is why GB Energy really matters: we have chosen to put its headquarters in Aberdeen, as we recognise that Aberdeen is the clean energy capital of our country—not just for oil and gas, which is important, but for the future. SNP Members are chuntering on the Front Bench, but they never did anything to create that future for people in Aberdeen.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

5. What steps he is taking to increase electricity grid capacity.

State of Climate and Nature

Debate between Ed Miliband and Calum Miller

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we take this journey, we must ensure that we do everything we can to protect existing industries and workers and give them a smooth transition. We do that by ensuring that we have levers that the Government can use, such as Great British Energy, the national wealth fund and our clean industries bonus, to intervene and create the jobs of the future. To give the example of the North sea, 70,000 jobs have been lost there in less than a decade because it is a declining basin. The answer must be to create the jobs of the future, and that is what the Government are determined to do.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The impact of climate change is being felt today in my constituency. At Pegtop farm, there is a race to bring in the harvest after such a dry, hot spring, and yields are expected to be less than half of what they would normally be. On 23 and 24 September last year, we had extensive surface flooding, which flooded many homes. What share of the flood defence budget will deal with surface flooding, rather than river flooding? How would the Secretary of State characterise the relevant responsibilities of national and local government, developers, water companies, insurers and householders?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Member asked a complex question, so I might volunteer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to write to him on that, so that we get it right. I know—because he was whispering the answer to me—that he takes this seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ed Miliband and Calum Miller

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

That is an excellent question, Mr Speaker. I will write to the hon. Lady with a good answer.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I was pleased to see the Secretary of State saying last week that those who host clean energy infrastructure should benefit from it. When landowners and developers in my constituency are cashing in on building new solar, my constituents in Bicester and Woodstock think that it is only fair that benefits are shared. Will the Secretary of State tell me whether he will follow the model of other Governments in setting a mandatory—