Foreign Affairs and Defence

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I will come to exactly those points and will expand on them.

An approach based on the international rules-based order and humanitarian law led to our being on the right side of the argument on apartheid in South Africa, on Hong Kong, and indeed on the war in Iraq. It guides our approach now. I am pleased—delighted, even—that the Government have included reference to the all-important two-state solution in the King’s Speech, and I am very much heartened by the their change in tone. But words are meaningless without concrete action. It is vital that we start to think about what we need to do the day after that ceasefire is secured, because at some point it will be—we all know that. Hamas are extremes in this debate, but so is Netanyahu. Neither wants peace. It is in neither of their interests. It is the framing of one versus the other that has proved to be so insidious in this debate.

There are plenty of voices in Israel, Palestine and beyond who are partners in peace and are actively calling for it. Protest in Israel is growing, with demonstrations held in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, clamouring for a deal to be done to bring those hostages home. They often link that to a ceasefire, and the release of Palestinian political prisoners such as Marwan Barghouti. That wider movement for peace is growing.

I want to tell the House about two friends of mine, Maoz and Magen Inon. They lost their parents on 7 October when Hamas targeted their house with a close-range missile. I have been twice to Netiv HaAsara—once before and once since—and I saw their house and their burnt out car. It was heartbreaking. But rather than turn to hatred, they chose instead to spend their whole lives talking about peace, because they do not want this to happen to anyone else’s family. There is only one way to guarantee that: peace and a shared future. In them and in all those Israeli peace activists—a growing movement—I see that shared future.

This Chamber and this Government need to understand that people like Maoz and Magen are embers in a nascent fire. They need the oxygen of political support to survive and grow. The same is true for Palestinian peace activists Hamze and Ahmed, who I recently shared a panel with—all of us children of the Nakba, but all of us willing to devote our futures to stopping the endless taking of lives to avenge a past we no longer want to keep resurrecting over and over again. These are the voices that deserve to be amplified, and this is the kind of rhetoric that I hope we can all follow—bringing people together, not seeking to divide. I say that with some disappointment, because in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in response to the King’s Speech yesterday, he did not mention Palestine at all, only Israel. We cannot do that. We must understand that we cannot have security and freedom for Israel without security and freedom for Palestine. That is why the mention of the two-state solution is so vital.

Let us start with the basics: a two-state solution needs two states. That is why we must recognise the state of Palestine, along 1967 borders, immediately without preconditions. I have laid a Bill in every parliamentary Session since I was elected, and I will do so again. Some 140 countries have already taken this step, including Ireland, Spain and Norway just this May. If the UK were to join them, it would send a powerful message to the Israeli Government that we are serious about two states—something that Netanyahu has rejected. It would also send a message to the Palestinian people, who are desperate for hope that the international community—in particular the UK with our long-standing historical obligations to the region—will help them achieve that future.

Many will say—and they are right—that recognition is not enough. One of the biggest barriers to peace are the illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank. In 2024, Israel illegally seized 23.7 sq km of Palestinian land in the occupied west bank. That is more than all the land it has taken over the past 20 years combined. These settlements are illegal under international law. They exacerbate tension and they undermine the viability of that previous two-state solution. We have called for individual violent settlers who breach international law to be sanctioned. I was pleased that the then Conservative Government took some small steps and sanctioned individual settlers, but I urge the Government to go further. The Liberal Democrats have called for sanctions to include Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, and the connected entities that provide support or enable those extremist individuals. Since 2021, we have also called for the UK to ban trade with illegal settlements, because if they are illegal under international law, we should put a firm marker in the sand.

To come to the point made by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the trade of British weapons needs to be handled with great care. Our policy is not to single out Israel—that is important. Our policy is built on ensuring that no British-made arms are sold to any countries that are in potential breach of human rights law. That is why we believe that we should look at our arms export trade with Israel. Despite repeated calls, the Government never released their own legal advice on potential breaches of international law in this conflict, but given that there is a case to answer at the ICJ and the ICC, the British public deserve to know whether the Government are breaching their own arms export regime. The Foreign Secretary, when he was shadow Foreign Secretary, asked for that legal advice to be released; I am curious to see whether he will make good on that promise.

While we are on the subject of courts, it is vital that the UK Government give their full-throated support to the ICC and the ICJ in their investigations and judgments. The UK Government must support them and their processes and outcomes without fear or favour. That goes beyond this conflict, as there are international ramifications if we undermine those courts that are the bedrock of our international rules-based order. When in government, the Conservatives undermined those processes, but I had hoped for better from Labour, and I still do. In January, the now Foreign Secretary said that his party believed that if an arrest warrant were issued for Netanyahu, they would honour it. Since then, Karim Khan at the ICC has issued one for Hamas leaders and Netanyahu, but we understand from the media that the block by the UK, which should be removed, may have remained in place. It would helpful for the Foreign Secretary to come to the House and explain the position.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

As ever, the hon. Lady is a powerful advocate on injustices all over the world. The particular point she raises on the international rules-based order is very powerful. It and the international legal system must provide equal protection to all people, and they must be free from double standards. The minute those two things do not apply, the very nature of the rules-based order is under threat.

[Layla Moran]

I could not agree more. It has really concerned me how people perceive a double standard between what is happening in this conflict and what is happening between Ukraine and Russa. They are very different conflicts. As politicians, we have to bolster that international rules-based order so that people have faith that injustices anywhere in the world will be put through a proper process and determined. I am afraid to say that we are at risk—not just this country but the US—of undermining that system. I urge the Government to take a different approach.

I will simply end by saying that I urge the Government to go further and faster on a two-state solution. I would love to see a plan for what they mean by leading. I would offer my services with pleasure, because we need that two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in dignity and security. It is going to take much more than a change in tone to get there. It is vital to what we need to achieve peace, not just in Israel-Palestine but in the middle east and the region as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak on the second day of this very important debate, and I thank all those who have made their maiden speeches today. We have heard some excellent contributions from around the House, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan). There was much on which her predecessor and I agreed, and sometimes we even disagreed, but one thing on which we very much agreed was that the curry in Bradford is far superior to that in Ealing Southall. [Interruption.] That is perhaps contentious—Birmingham is third. My hon. Friend used a really key word as the theme throughout her speech, which I think we could all do with reflecting much more on and using much more, and that was “diversity” and the celebration of diversity. So let me welcome all our new hon. Members across the House who have joined us in what is perhaps one of the most diverse Parliaments. I look forward to working with all of them.

It was my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher)—I did not know there was an island next to Doncaster East, but we are always learning something new—who said something we should all take great note of. In ending his speech, he said—perhaps not in these words, but it will be in Hansard—that he would stay true to the people of his constituency. If I could offer one word of advice to new hon. Members, that would be it, because tragically, this place can consume us—where it has its positives, it also has its negatives. Sometimes speaking truth to power is one of the most difficult things we can do, especially, I remember, as a new Member, but I have always believed and championed the idea that one should be free to speak. We can agree to disagree, but we are here to represent our constituents. Westminster did not send me to Bradford. The people of Bradford sent me here, and I will make sure that the people of Bradford are always heard. I would also say, as a word of caution, that this is not necessarily a blueprint to success; by saying all the right things, sometimes one does not succeed in the same way, but I believe that we should continue to be true to ourselves in this place.

Sticking with diversity, I represent the beautiful city of Bradford. I am so grateful to the people of Bradford for trusting me and sending me back down to Parliament as their representative. Bradford is a diverse place, and people from many different backgrounds have come together to call it their home. That is what gives the place its strength. My own grandparents came to this country in the ’60s, working long hours seven days a week in the textile mills, sometimes with 10 people sleeping in a room that could barely accommodate three or four. The journeys we have made from then are remarkable. May God bless the soul of my grandad. May God give him the highest station in paradise. If he was here today and saw the achievements that we have made, he would be very proud. All of us have to do that job here—to represent our constituents and those journeys.

Equally, Bradford is a place that has suffered. In the last 14 years, the poverty and deprivation that I have seen on the streets of Bradford has been unprecedented. The reality remains that the last Tory Government spent 14 years crippling our economy, creating a crisis in our NHS, allowing crime to rise, polluting our rivers, breaking our housing market, letting wages stagnate and persecuting minorities; so for families in my constituency, there is a lot in this King’s Speech to feel positive about.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who is no longer in his place, said, with the implementation of our transformative new deal for working people to strengthen people’s rights at work, boost wages and tackle bad employers, we can make work pay after years of Tory pay stagnation. With the establishment of Great British Energy to cut household energy bills and the plans to boost wealth creation in our communities, we can tackle the cost of living crisis that so many families continue to face. With the return of rail operators to public ownership and plans to bring buses under public control, we can ensure that public transport serves passengers, not private company shareholders. With investment in proper neighbourhood policing and named officers for every community—something that I have long championed—we can cut crime, tackle antisocial behaviour and keep our streets safe. And with the delivery of more healthcare in our communities and improvements to our NHS, we can tackle the stark health inequalities that continue to blight communities in Bradford and in constituencies up and down the country.

Yet the King’s Speech should have gone much further. Failing to scrap the two-child limit, which affects three in five households in Bradford, means that it will not tackle rampant child poverty. The Government yesterday launched a taskforce to work on a new child poverty strategy, but that taskforce is guaranteed to reach at least one conclusion and make at least one recommendation: that child poverty is entrenched by the two-child limit, and that that limit must be scrapped. I urge Ministers not to kick the can down the road to a time when they will have to scrap the limit anyway. Instead, they should stop the delay, scrap the limit now and lift children out of poverty today, and not in six months or a year.

After the last Tory Government stood by as clear violations of international law were carried out, re-emphasising in the King’s Speech the Government’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law is an important step. However, if we want the UK to regain its global leadership on these issues, we cannot do so without upholding our responsibilities under international law. That includes fulfilling obligations to abide by and protect the independence of the International Criminal Court, as well as supporting the International Court of Justice and upholding numerous charters, treaties, conventions and resolutions. The Government must therefore immediately drop the baseless legal challenge over the ICC’s jurisdiction and the arrest warrants sought by the chief prosecutor for Benjamin Netanyahu and others, and they must reject all attempts to impede the ICC’s work.

As the Foreign Secretary knows, I recently visited the ICC in The Hague with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) to meet human rights organisations and to present to the chief prosecutor’s team evidence of Israeli war crimes gathered over months of meetings with witnesses and experts. What was clear was just how concerned those organisations were over the lack of UK involvement in such an important case. I again urge the Government to back the ICC’s efforts to secure justice for all victims of war crimes. If the Government do not get that right—if they stray from upholding international law—it puts the whole international rules-based order at risk, and it perpetuates double standards that effectively mean one life is not always valued the same as another. The UK has an absolute duty to challenge those double standards, to make it clear that everyone is afforded the same protections and to prove that international law institutions and UN resolutions actually mean something. The Government must do that in Palestine, but also in such places as Kashmir, where they must uphold UN resolutions that sit gathering dust after more than seven decades and grant the sons and daughters of Kashmir their birthright of self-determination.

Finally, it is important that the Government declare that the UK will play its part in trying to secure long-term peace in the middle east. As a number of Members have mentioned, with such death and destruction, a few lines about trying for peace are frankly not enough. Close to 40,000 men, women and children have been killed, while countless more have been injured. Homes, schools, mosques and hospitals have been levelled and reduced to rubble. Almost 2 million Palestinians have been displaced from their homes and forced to flee for their lives. Gaza remains under siege with insufficient food, water, medicine or fuel reaching those in need. The Israeli military continue to bomb, shoot and kill Palestinian civilians in direct violation of international law. A catastrophic humanitarian nightmare is taking place in Gaza.

The Foreign Secretary may call for an immediate ceasefire, but mistrust and uncertainty means that the King’s Speech should have made it an iron-clad commitment. The King’s Speech should have redoubled efforts to deliver desperately needed humanitarian aid to Gaza. It should have made it clear that the sale of arms to the Israeli military will end, in line with international law. It should have made clear the UK’s opposition to the collective punishment of the Palestinians and demanded an end to the siege of Gaza. Instead of just recommitting to the two-state solution, the King’s Speech should have set out the immediate recognition of a viable state of Palestine. That is what we needed to see in the King’s Speech yesterday, and that is why I tabled an amendment with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) to set out that position clearly.

After 14 years of the Tories, the King’s Speech is a strong start to undo the damage they caused, and it has my support, but there is much work to be done. I will continue to press the Government to get the best results for my constituents, because it is my constituents who sent me down here, and their voice will be heard.

[Several hon. Members rose—]