Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult the Oxford English Dictionary and look at the two words.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the actions he has taken. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s joint statement yesterday. The word “genocide” is used quite often here, and all indicators point towards that happening. I appreciate the suspension of negotiations on a free trade agreement, but children are still dying every single day, and people are losing their homes. What will it take? What do we have to wait for to call it what it is and act to stop what is happening?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend talks with such integrity, and I know that she has been a consistent ambassador for the Palestinian people in this House. She feels the same as most of our constituents, who want this to stop now. The actions we have taken bilaterally are a diplomatic move by the United Kingdom Government to exert influence to try to make it stop, but she knows history—she knows that we cannot do that unilaterally. I wish I could stand at this Dispatch Box and say that we could. If I were standing here in 1950, that might have been possible, but here we are in 2025. We must work in concert with other partners. That is why the statement from the Foreign Ministers of 27 countries is so important. It is why we have taken the actions we have today, and it is why we have indicated that we will act further if we need to, particularly as we head to this important conference in New York convened by France and Saudi Arabia, working alongside them.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Naz Shah Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I believe the Bill has been substantially improved through the many amendments that she and others have tabled. I know that these issues were discussed in detail in Committee, but I have to be honest: sadly, the prospect of a prosecution has often not been sufficient to prevent abuse. I note that in the discussions in Committee, a number of medical professionals mentioned that they often have to assess whether coercion has taken place and that they are confident in that assessment, but there is a huge amount of contestation around whether that confidence is rightly placed or otherwise.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that there will only be three hours for a panel, and that the first and second doctors might not actually know the patient or have met them? Their ability to spot coercion will be very limited.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Yes, I do share my hon. Friend’s concern in that regard. Sadly, we all know how perpetrators of coercion operate. They will often school the subject of their coercion in how to respond to questioning, to try to hide what they are doing from others. That is a concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I will not give way at the moment.

That is why it is important that that exclusion is put very clearly on the face of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I am sorry, but I am on my last paragraph.

Those measures are effectively barriers to helping eligible people make their own choice for when and how to die at the end of all they have suffered.

I truly believe we must not make the process of gaining permission any harder or more traumatic than we need to. Although I am listening hard to the arguments made, quite a few of the amendments and new clauses cross that line. These momentous decisions about our deaths must be led by compassion, and must not be made to seem like yet another battle for people who have already given their all to staying alive.

[Naz Shah]

I thank Members for supporting amendments 14 and 38 in my name.

I acknowledge that the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), has said that she is happy, as of this morning, to accept my amendment 14.

My hon. Friend has also indicated that there might be a need to change some of the wording, but until I see the wording of the new amendment and can scrutinise it, I cannot make an informed choice about accepting that. In addition, I was told this at only 9.30 am, on the Floor of the House. It was not discussed with me, and I am not sure whether the promoter has discussed it with Ministers. This very argument has been hashed out in Committee, where many of us spent weeks and weeks scrutinising line by line.

Indeed, the promoter tabled her own amendment 181 in Committee to strengthen clause 2. At that point, Ministers, outlining their neutrality, said that the amendments tabled, for which many colleagues had argued, were not, in the Government’s opinion, workable. In the Government’s opinion, what has now changed? Has an assessment been made by my hon. Friend or the Government that these amendments could now be accepted?

What this speaks to—I emphasise this to all Members listening and to the public at home—is a fundamentally flawed process. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] This is not how we make legislation. I take my responsibility extremely seriously, as I am sure everybody in this House does. This is literally a matter of life and death. If the Bill passes without these safeguards, there is no coming back from those decisions.

[Daniel Francis]

As my hon. Friend knows, having been on the Bill Committee with me, I had the same advice from Ministers: they disagreed with the wording of some of my amendments, yet they were accepted by the Bill’s promoter and the Committee and are now in the wording of the Bill. The position of the promoter and the position put to this House will now be that those amendments are not in line with the Government’s position. What is my hon. Friend’s view on the fact that we will be asked to support that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the problem with this Bill, this process and what we are being told. We are being given things on the face of the Bill—

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for her passionate contribution, but this is exactly how we make law. We take evidence and have discussions—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

My amendment 14 is very much about anorexia. It has been debated and hashed out time and again. I have come to the House today and been told, while sitting in my seat, that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley is minded to accept the amendment without any discussion. I do not know what risk assessments or other assessments the Government have made, so how can I speak to that amendment when I do not have those details? I can say that Chelsea Roff, an expert on anorexia, gave evidence to the Committee. I can talk about how clinicians from every single major charity for eating disorders have made it clear that if this Bill goes through, it will not be fit for purpose and people will fall through that loophole. Without the information in front of me, however, I cannot speak to the amendment.

[Dr Tidball]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Naz Shah]

Sorry, I will make some progress.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Naz Shah]

I will make some progress. I sincerely appreciate the guidance from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, from Mr Speaker and from all across this House—the Clerks have been really helpful.

I come back to the amendments. In Oregon, in the States, 60 women were given assisted death. Every single one of them—100%—were told that they had the capacity. We have an issue in this country. Some 11 cases have gone to the Court of Protection, and my understanding is that nine of them have been told that they do not have the capacity, but doctors have been given permission not to continue to feed them. That is an issue for us; there is an issue of capacity.

There is a second issue in relation to amendment 38, which I will speak to. Even if my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley accepts my first amendment in its entirety, word for word, we do not close the loophole with amendment 38. What if we have somebody with diabetes? The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) spoke very passionately about diabetes. I know the experience, because I was gestationally diabetic on three occasions and dependent on insulin, and I also appreciate the risk of being a pre-diabetic. If somebody decides not to take insulin and that they do not want to have dialysis, they would bring themselves within the scope of this Bill as it is written. That is a fact.

Contrary to the many people who have been on the radio and in other places saying, “The Bill excludes people’s mental health”, this Bill does not, as it is written, say that mental health is excluded. [Hon. Members: “It does!”] It does not.

[Dr Tidball]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Naz Shah]

No, I will make progress. I am very conscious that lots of colleagues are here. I remember that we were all sitting here in November the first time that we debated this Bill; more than 100 Members did not get to speak in that debate, and many people might not get to speak today.

I feel really disheartened. As other Members who were on the Committee have pointed out, we have spent so much time rehashing these arguments. There were opportunities to fix this Bill rather than me and others having to put down amendments, taking up time and not giving those who would otherwise have spoken the opportunity to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

No, I need to make progress. They will be daunted not least because, although we have international examples, we are considering a novel practice in this country in our particular circumstances.

Members who are generally supportive or opposed in principle may choose to abstain on a number of amendments on which they feel that they are unable to give a definitive view and are content to vote on the final outcome on Third Reading. That would be understandable. I know that Members have considered how they will vote very carefully, and that they will continue to do so, by taking into account their views and experiences, as well as those of their constituents, other Members whom they respect, and experts and campaigning organisations. We will all be directly accountable to our constituents at the next election for all our votes throughout this Parliament.

That brings me to the remarks that I said I would like to finish with on the responsibilities of the public and campaigners towards MPs as they consider our votes. As we are first and foremost public servants, the focus is quite rightly usually almost entirely on the responsibility of MPs to the public, but as with all meaningful relationships, this is, and should always be, a two-way street. I accept the very strong feelings and deeply personal experiences that are brought to bear for those people contacting their MPs, and nothing I say should be taken as diminishing the rights of campaigners to make their cases strongly and consistently, but I and others have experienced lobbying by campaigners whose passion for securing the outcome they want has led them to question the integrity, sincerity or understanding of those MPs seeking a different outcome to them.

Some high-profile campaigners have made unhelpful remarks. Although I am not religious, I was concerned to see the clumsy criticism of those whose objections to the Bill are thought to be centred in their religious beliefs, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato).

[Naz Shah]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Mullan]

I need to make progress.

I say that not least because I suspect that a very large number of supporters of the Bill might draw on their Christian or other religious compassion to explain why they want to see it pass. There was widespread reporting of how powerful the Second Reading debate was in showcasing the best of Parliament, with thoughtful debate and a consideration of nuanced and varied viewpoints. If Parliament demonstrates itself at its best, that creates a call for the public to do the same.

Gaza: UK Assessment

Naz Shah Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s dismay that events in the region since the horrific actions of 7 October have involved an enormous amount of bloodshed and civilian suffering. This Government hope that we will yet see a day when the region is stable, when there are normal diplomatic relations between all its members, and when there is a two-state solution, with the two states living securely and safely side by side. I regret that it feels such a distant prospect.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Seventy-seven years since the Nakba, Israel’s illegal occupation eats away at the land. We now have—I will repeat these words loud and clear—“plausible genocide” according to the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, Amnesty International and the United Nations. Given this week’s news, what new assessments have been made, and how often, to determine what other actions we can take to stop what is happening to the Gazans—the children, the civilians, and the aid workers—and to make sure that we can get aid in? What other pressures and levers can the Government use, including as part of a bloc, together with international partners and others, in addition to recognising Palestine? Surely that recognition is long overdue.

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend asks important questions about assessments. Those are made regularly, on a rolling basis, and in the light of new events. I reassure her that we do not wait for assessments or final legal determinations before taking action. I have listed some of that action already, and I reassure her that we will work urgently with our allies and partners on further pressure to make Israel change course.

India-Pakistan: Escalation

Naz Shah Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Members need to temper their language and not use statements such as “misleading the House”.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Twenty six people lost their lives in the Pahalgam terrorist attack, and now 26 people lost their lives in yesterday’s attack. The truth remains that no evidence has been presented to anybody—any national or international partners—to say that Pakistan was, indeed, responsible for the attack on Pahalgam. I thank the Minister for coming so soon to the House and for all his efforts in trying to de-escalate. But to actually get de-escalation, and if India is so certain, does he agree that India should share that evidence with the world to justify this barbaric attack killing 26 people and attacking mosques in the middle of the night?

[Mr Falconer]

As I said in the previous answer, there is clearly a considerable amount of debate about the facts of what has happened just in the last few hours. I do not wish to focus, and it would indeed be inappropriate for the UK to speculate, on those exact facts. We need to focus from this House on de-escalating the risks to regional stability that we see today.

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important question about the economic viability of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and what any future state of Palestine would rely on for its economy. There clearly are very important questions to be considered about energy, water and the areas themselves. Clearly, many of these issues have been considered as final-status determination issues envisaged for the end of a two-state solution conference. We are doing everything we can to try and support the most practical measures possible to enable the Palestinians to live the most dignified lives that they can.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

May I place on record my thanks to the Minister for all the work that he and the Secretary of State are doing on the MOU, which is very welcome?

On the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I appreciate that we stood on that manifesto, and rightly so, but things have since changed. The Government’s position was that we would continue recognition as part of the peace process, but Israel has been blocking aid to Gaza for 50 days now, people are starting to die of starvation, settler violence is increasing in the west bank and we now have an MOU, so is this not the right time to review our position? Will the Minister at least commit to going away and reviewing the decision and give the Palestinians the state recognition that they are way overdue?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is very committed to these issues, and raises them with me here and elsewhere. I will not restate the position, but I will once again confirm from the Dispatch Box our commitment to our manifesto and that we consider recognition an inalienable right of the Palestinian people. However, it must be part of the practical steps taken to bring the violence to an end and a peaceful resolution to the region.

Kashmir: Increasing Tension

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

Too often in the region for which I am responsible, and indeed in this country, we have seen terrorist attacks designed to have exactly the effect that the right hon. Gentleman has described, namely to provoke tension, intercommunal hostility and a breakdown of law and order. As he says, a proper, law-enforcement-led response based on a focus on the actual perpetrators is important in this area, as it is throughout the world.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

May I first send my condolences, thoughts and prayers to all the victims of this heinous terrorist attack in occupied Kashmir?

There is a large Kashmiri diaspora in my constituency, and many of my constituents have reached out to me expressing deep concerns. A number of them have mentioned the Indus waters treaty. Pakistan has already been suffering from the effects of floods in past years, from which it has not recovered. At times of escalation and troubles such as this it seems to be communities at large, be they in India or Pakistan, who suffer. What message can the Minister give my constituents to reassure them that the UK is doing all it can to de-escalate, bring things back to normal and hold the perpetrators to account?

[Mr Falconer]

We are focused on holding the perpetrators to account. I am familiar with the issues facing Pakistan in relation to acute natural disaster: I was there during the disastrous floods in 2010, and I recognise the importance of the Indus river system in both India and Pakistan and of co-operation between the two states to manage that vital system. There is a great deal of speculation about what has been decided and what has been agreed, but we understand that diplomatic treaties are being held in abeyance and that there is still space for a long-term answer to some of these questions.

Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants

Naz Shah Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hamish Falconer]

There is a domestic legal process through our independent courts, and we cannot prejudge that process. I note that the shadow Attorney General has written to the Attorney General about questions of detail in relation to some of the points to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, and the Attorney General tells me that he will be writing back on the subject of those more detailed points.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

While we watch and work tirelessly to secure a ceasefire in Gaza—which is really important simply because if children do not see an end in sight, neither do the families in Gaza—does the Minister agree that Britain’s reputation on the world scene as a global leader in upholding justice would be undermined if Britain did not respect the independence of the ICC, which is what Conservative Members are implying?

[Hamish Falconer]

This Government think that adherence to international law, and being seen to adhere to international law, are incredibly important, and in everything we have done since July we have sought to underline that principle, which I hope is one on which the whole House would support us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hamish Falconer]

I think that you, Mr Speaker, and other Members will understand that it is not appropriate to comment on that in the House.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

As the Minister will know, the ICJ has ruled that member states such as the UK are obliged to distinguish in their dealings between green-line Israel and occupied territory. In line with that ruling, as well as obligations under United Nations Security Council resolution 2334, what steps are the Government taking to address the issue of products entering the UK from illegal settlements?

[Hamish Falconer]

I will write to my hon. Friend about the complex issue of trade with Israel and how we make that distinction, if that is okay.

Oral Answers to Questions

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

14. What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

20. What steps he is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

[The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

We have trebled our aid commitment in the past year and we are doing all we can to get more aid to Gaza by land, air and sea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

President Biden has been very heavily engaged in this matter. As the hon. Member knows, both the American and British Governments have pressed Israel not to launch an all-out assault on Rafah for the reasons that she set out. The shadow Foreign Secretary rightly said that he hopes that Hamas will accept the current deal on the table, and I agree with him.

[Naz Shah]

An Israel ground invasion in Rafah is probable within days, leading to 1.5 million displaced Palestinians with no safe place to shelter. Children in Gaza have been starved at the fastest rate that the world has ever seen, and Members across the House, including myself, have come here time and again asking for something to be done in terms of delivering aid and pushing for a ceasefire. Time and again, the Minister says that we are trying, trying, trying, but clearly trying is not working. What will the Government do to move the dial and stop children dying?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Member will have seen the 6 April maritime announcement and she will know that Britain is ramping up the delivery of aid by land, sea and air. She will, I hope, be aware that we have a naval ship standing by with £9.7 million of aid and logistics equipment. There have also been 10 air drops already from the Royal Air Force; an 11th one is expected today. Therefore, the British Government are doing everything they possibly can to move the dial, as she requests.

Afghan Refugees: Deportation from Pakistan

Naz Shah Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. As I said in my statement earlier, we will always continue to remind the new Government of Pakistan, as we did the previous one, of their international obligations around some of these incredibly difficult issues. We have a very good relationship with the Government of Pakistan, so that is a conversation that we continue to have daily.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I am a really proud foster parent to an Afghan refugee—actually, I am now a grandmother—so I am grateful for the urgent question. I am really concerned about those who have been forcibly taken out of Pakistan, and particularly about the reports on those who were actually born in Pakistan. It smacks of a sick joke that, on one hand, we are talking about bringing Afghan refugees here, but on the other hand, tonight the Government will vote down the noble Lord Browne’s amendment to prevent Afghans who supported us and our British armed forces from being packed off to Rwanda. My question is really simple: how can we show a moral stance on the issue today, when the Government will be voting down the amendment on Afghans who are at risk?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

It is lovely to hear of that personal commitment to a refugee from the hon. Member’s family. Such stories are so important, and it is lovely to hear them brought here and championed, because that shows that the commitment is about much more than just words. I congratulate her on becoming a granny, as it were. It is a lovely story to share.

Importantly, the hon. Lady raises the question of those who worked and served alongside our armed forces or in other areas. The two incredibly generous schemes—ARAP and the ACRS—are there precisely to provide the opportunity for those who wish to apply, and who are eligible, to come and have safe harbour in the UK. The schemes, particularly ARAP, will continue for as long as needed, and we encourage those who have not applied—though the numbers suggest that very large numbers have already applied—to do so. As I say, they are long-standing and very generous schemes, which will continue. Week in, week out, we are able to bring the incredibly brave people who served and supported our armed forces to the UK.