(3 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberAbsolutely, and I will come on to that point. I have already touched on the seismic nature of the Bill. To be frank, I have spent a decade in this place, and I have never seen a Bill of this seismic nature and with these direct consequences being rushed through in one week. The motion that goes to the House of Lords will be a money motion, which will not allow it to make any amendments before the Bill comes back.
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Would it not be a sensible way forward if the House simply passed the excellent reasoned amendment moved by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and parked the issue there? We would then have the necessary consultation and preparation for a more effective Bill.
Courageous political leadership sometimes demands that we admit it when we get it wrong, like we did with the winter fuel allowance. I sincerely think that people respect us when we get something wrong and come back to it. We have had concession after concession, and that is admission enough that we have got this wrong. My view remains that it would be dignified for the Government to say, “We will go with the reasoned amendment. We will have meaningful consultation with disability groups, and then we will come back.”
Everything I say is said in absolute sincerity, and I finish by making a point that has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom are acting in good faith for the collective good of the people they represent, which is this: all of us will have to go back to our constituencies and justify the decision we make today. I have always promised my constituents in Bradford East that I will never vote for anything that will increase poverty and deprivation or deepen the health inequalities in my constituency, because it is not this place that sends me to Bradford, but the people of Bradford who send me to this place. I will remain true to them, I will remain accountable to them, and I will make sure that their voice is heard. I will be voting for the amendment, and I will be voting against the Bill today.
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing the debate, as well as the authoritative way in which he introduced it. Last night, 400 more people died in Gaza as a result of direct bombardment in breach of the ceasefire. At the same time, Israel is denying access to food, water and supply of electricity to the people of Gaza, who are now going through the most ghastly time ever, on top of all the horrors they have been through over more than a year. So many people—69,000—are now known to be dead there, and more bodies are found every day that rubble is cleared away. Those who survive will forever live with survivor’s guilt for the fact that they survived while all their friends and family died around them. This is devastation beyond belief on live television all around the world. We watch people being starved to death in front of our very eyes, while there is food aplenty just a few kilometres away, deliberately denied to them by a decision of Israel. That is a war crime. We have to be quite clear about that.
In a statement in the Chamber yesterday, in response to the G7 summit that the Foreign Secretary had attended, I asked a specific question about international law and the war crimes that I believe Israel has committed. He, it seemed to me, conceded that Israel was in breach of international law. That is quite significant. Presumably, there are many Foreign Office briefings going around saying that Israel is in breach of those laws.
That leads to the second question: if we, as a country, knowingly accept that Israel is in breach of international law and continue to provide it with the weapons with which people can be killed in Gaza then we ourselves, as a country, also become complicit in breaches of international law. Those laws are there for a purpose, to try to prevent genocide and the crimes against humanity that are happening before our very eyes.
The right hon. Member makes a powerful case. Does he agree that the international dimensions of the situation are so clear, with the ICJ investigating genocide and the International Criminal Court investigating war crimes, even though it continues to be attacked for that, that there is no room for any nation to deny this serious international situation? Secondly, would he agree that silence, frankly, goes with hypocrisy and double standards?
Order. We are very short of time, so I ask Members to refrain from interventions, in order to get through every speaker.