Imran Hussain
MP for Bradford East · Labour · United Kingdom
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have a proud tradition of welcoming those fleeing persecution, oppression and injustice. In my constituency, over a decade ago many Rohingya who were fleeing genocide made Bradford their home, and we welcomed them.”
“I thank both my hon. Friends, and I absolutely agree with them. They will know that, as chair of the APPG on Kashmir, I co-ordinated a letter to the Foreign Secretary calling for urgent diplomatic engagement to address those very issues and tabled an early-day motion that now has the combined support of over 70 parliamentarians across the…”
“I absolutely agree. While not all the reports have emerged in full because of the communications blackout, they continue to concern the whole House, as they should. My message to those who use inflammatory and divisive language is that they do not help anyone.”
“They must continue to use every appropriate diplomatic channel to encourage restraint, de-escalation and dialogue. Ultimately, peace and dialogue must prevail. There is only one sustainable path forward: peaceful table talks.”
“He has visited Pakistan and continues to monitor the situation and raise the matter directly. Today, we in this House make an appeal to our Government to send a direct appeal to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Government of Azad Kashmir to ensure that this situation ends immediately.”
“In August 2019, we all saw the right-wing Modi Government unilaterally and illegally revoke articles 370 and 35A, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special constitutional status.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Imran Hussain, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 13.
“Since the illegal revocation of articles 370 and 35A in 2019, Indian-occupied Kashmir has experienced prolonged restrictions on civil liberties, mass surveillance, arbitrary detention and repeated internet shutdowns. Political dissent has been criminalised. Journalists have been silenced, and human rights defenders have been targeted. These are not isolated incidents; they form part of a deliberate and sustained policy to strip Kashmiris of their dignity, voice and agency. I hear about this from the wider community I represent. Their family members have been detained without charge, have their communications monitored, and have their basic freedoms denied. This is not an abstract foreign policy issue; it is a human rights crisis that reaches directly into our communities here in Britain.”
“It goes much further than tariffs; it is about standards, co-operation and the institutional machinery that will shape the relationship for years to come. The central question for many of my constituents is: how can we seek to deepen economic co-operation with India while remaining silent on the grave ongoing human rights violations in Kashmir and beyond? Let me be clear at the outset: economic engagement can never come at the expense of human rights, and must never come at the expense of the Kashmiri people. For nearly 80 years, Kashmiris have endured persecution, repression and injustice. In recent years, the situation has dramatically worsened.”
“The free trade agreement before us raises many serious questions about our trade policy and human rights, but for many of my constituents in Bradford East, the debate is about not abstract trade policy, or distant diplomatic calculations, but an issue very dear to their heart: Kashmir, which continues to be occupied. I represent thousands of British Kashmiris with close family ties to Jammu and Kashmir. For them, the actions of the Indian state are not theoretical, but lived realities, felt through family separation, fear, arbitrary detention and the systematic erosion of basic freedoms. That is why the UK-India free trade agreement raises such serious and urgent concerns. It is a major agreement with over 30 chapters, as pointed out by the Minister, yet it contains no explicit enforceable human rights clause.”
“As I begin my remarks in this important debate, I want to be absolutely clear that I do not oppose free trade deals. They have immense benefits, as was set out by the Minister. For once, or certainly on this very rare occasion, I accept some of the points made by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), about missed opportunities. There has been one big missed opportunity in this deal: at what point do we sacrifice our obligation to protect human rights in favour of free trade? That is what I will focus on.”
“I strongly welcome this statement, which recognises that Bradford, one of the largest and youngest cities, cannot be left behind any longer. I, along with my colleagues Madam Deputy Speaker—my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins)—and the leader of Bradford council, have campaigned for more than a decade for a new station and better connectivity. We cannot have Bradford waiting another two decades. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the new station and that connectivity will be part of phase 1 of this programme?”
“Regardless of what is said in this place, it is clear for all to see that Trump’s illegal actions in Venezuela are a blatant violation of international law, and now he has Greenland clearly in his sight. Frankly, the response from the international community and our own Government has been shameful. How can we pretend to defend international law when we refuse even to condemn the most blatant of violations and do not apply it equally? The reality is that we are sending a green light to say that international rules no longer apply. Let us call this what it is. Trump’s actions are not about democracy; they are about oil and old-fashioned colonialism. I give the Foreign Secretary the opportunity again. If she truly believes and wants to stand up for international law, she should stand at that Dispatch Box and condemn these illegal actions.”
“The reality is that Israel continues to breach the ceasefire while the international community continues to offer words and statements of concern without any real action. As we have already heard, this week it announced that 37 international aid organisations will now be prevented from distributing aid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That means that more women and children, already starving, will die in continuation of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Does the Minister not think that the time for words and statements of concern without action is over? When will he finally announce proper meaningful action, including ending all arms sales, putting widespread sanctions on Israel in the same way that we have done to Russia for its war crimes in Ukraine, and ending all trade with illegal settlements?”
“The reality is that for years the Tory Government relied on formulas that decimated local government and services for the poorest, while giving funding to affluent Tory suburbs, so clearly the Tories will not like the formula set out by the Minister. Today must be a turning point that corrects the grave wrong carried out by the previous Government for 14 years. Will the Minister confirm that the new formula, which I welcome, will mean that places like Bradford, which have some of the highest levels of poverty and deprivation, will finally begin to see their fair share in the settlement?”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for self-determination in Kashmir. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to be given the opportunity to have this very important and timely debate in this Chamber today, because for millions of Kashmiris across the world and the UK, the question of self-determination is not some distant, abstract foreign policy matter; it is about families torn apart, homes bulldozed, voices silenced, human rights abused and a people denied the most fundamental democratic right—the right to choose their own destiny; the right to self-determination. As someone who has campaigned on this matter for over a decade in this House, may I begin by saying very plainly that the world has failed the people of Kashmir and continues to do so?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. He is right, and I will come on to the substance of the point he makes shortly. Kashmir remains one of the world’s most heavily militarised zones and longest unresolved international disputes. Today’s problems have their origins in the unfinished business of partition in 1947, and it is important to start there—a moment in history when Britain played a direct and undeniable role. In 1948, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 47, which mandated a free and fair referendum to allow the sons and daughters of Kashmir to determine their own future and their own destiny.”
“Throughout the period, draconian and repressive laws, including the Indian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, have been used to grant sweeping powers to the Indian security forces, allowing detention without trial, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. All three of those Acts are illegal under international law, yet we continue to have silence from the international community.”
“As ever, my hon. Friend makes a fine point. She is absolutely right. Let us make that point clear: only the Kashmiris themselves can determine their own destiny. It is not a matter for India, for Pakistan or for any other country. As I was saying, the Kashmiris were promised a referendum 70 years ago. That referendum never happened. Their calls for justice have gone unanswered, their fundamental human rights have been violated, and their right to self-determination has been repeatedly denied. For more than 70 years, Kashmiris have continuously endured persecution, oppression and injustice.”
“I absolutely agree. We have a deafening silence and lack of action. One cannot choose between human rights abuses. In Kashmir, we continue to see human rights defenders, journalists and political leaders being targeted relentlessly. Political prisoners are denied the right to a fair trial and used as an example of what happens when Kashmiris dare to speak the truth. That is not the rule of law; it is state-sponsored persecution designed to break the will of an entire people.”
“That is the very point that I am coming to. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) said, for decades successive UK Governments have hidden behind the policy and line that Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. Let us start by saying clearly that Kashmir is not a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan but an international issue. The first thing the Government can do is start recognising it as that. The roots of the situation continue to be within UN Security Council resolutions that Britain helped to draft and promised to uphold. When a people are denied their right to self-determination, when human rights abuses are systematic and documented and when—this is another point—two nuclear states sit on a knife edge, the world, and especially the UK, cannot wash its hands of responsibility.”
“Frankly, people are fed up with promises made by successive parties and Governments, all of which have gone on to betray the Kashmiri people. Do the Government have the moral courage to stand by and defend their obligations under international law, to provide a case that moves away from the age-old wrong argument—that this is a bilateral issue—to one that recognises it as an issue deep-rooted in international law? That is the central question for the Government and the Minister. Along with hundreds of thousands of people watching, I would appreciate a straight answer.”
“Will he confirm that the UK Government’s position is to support the Kashmiri people’s birthright to self-determination through a free and fair plebiscite? Will the Government commit to ensuring that future trade negotiations with India do not come at the expense of human rights, accountability or justice, as trade cannot be prioritised over the rights of people who have been oppressed for generations, or do we apply a different set of rules to Kashmir? The key question that we, our Kashmiri constituents and everybody up and down the country who champions human rights are asking is: what is the Government’s stance on whether this is a bilateral or an international issue? When political parties go out campaigning in our constituencies, big promises are made on issues such as Kashmir.”
“The UK must match its words with action by raising human rights concerns at every diplomatic level, demanding the release of political prisoners, insisting on independent access for journalists and observers, and ensuring that any future trade negotiations with India contain binding human rights conditions. Trade cannot trump human rights, and economic deals must never come at the expense of the Kashmiri people’s dignity, safety and democratic rights. I have some simple questions for the Minister. First, do the Government and the Minister, who speaks for them, accept that the UK has a moral, historical and legal responsibility to support the full implementation of United Nations resolutions?”
“Governments of all stripes since the early ’70s have relied on the easy line that this is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, which has allowed us to wash our hands of moral, legal or political obligations. Let me be clear: this is not a bilateral issue and never has been. At its heart are international law and the right of Kashmiris to self-determination. Action is required. Silence is not neutrality; frankly, it is complicity. The world has allowed UN resolutions on Kashmir to sit gathering dust for decades, and that must end.”
“The central point of this debate is our moral, legal, historical and political duty. The United Kingdom is not a neutral observer in this conflict. Our decisions at partition, our diplomacy in the early decades and our vote for United Nations resolutions created obligations that remain unfulfilled to this day. We helped to shape Kashmir’s unresolved status, and therefore we bear a share of the responsibility for resolving it. We cannot speak of human rights in other parts of the world while telling Kashmiris that their rights are a matter for someone else to address. That is completely absurd and a clear abdication of our responsibilities. We cannot pick and choose when it comes to human right abuses, yet for decades successive Governments have done just that.”
“The current dispute started with Kashmiri grievances and demands, at the core of which were basic rights such as the right to a decent education, decent healthcare, fair pricing for electricity, and basic human rights that should be granted to all people. Of course, I welcome the de-escalation of the situation and the positive negotiations between the Pakistani Government, the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and the grassroots movement, the Awami Action Committee. I thank all colleagues who signed the letter from the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, and I am grateful to those Governments for liaising with it. But let me make it absolutely clear that the human rights of Kashmiris must be respected and that all the reasonable demands of the Awami Action Committee must be met in full and implemented in full.”
“Political disputes are criminalised with one aim: to silence legitimate voices for self-determination. Kashmiris continue to suffer under a system that strips them of dignity, voice and agency. In Azad Kashmir, where conditions are arguably much better and where there can be simply no comparison with the violence and bloodshed faced daily by Kashmiris on the Indian side, we have recently seen, very concerningly, a region-wide lockdown triggered by deep public grievances and followed by the suspension of mobile internet and even landline services. Markets have been closed and transport halted. Heavy deployments of security forces have created real fear and uncertainty for ordinary people. Those events have tragically led to the deaths and casualties of many.”
“Arbitrary detention, custodial torture, forced disappearances and collective punishment continue with impunity. Women have endured gender-based violence at shocking levels, with over 11,000 documented cases since 1989—an appalling statistic that speaks to the use of sexual violence as a weapon of repression. Political prisoners remain behind bars without any due process. Khurram Parvez, a globally respected human rights defender, has spent years in prison for documenting abuses. Yasin Malik has been convicted in proceedings widely condemned for lacking fairness and transparency by every human rights organisation and now faces the death penalty. Many others, including Asiya Andrabi and Irfan Mehraj, remain imprisoned under draconian legislation.”
“It transformed communities into open-air prisons. Families were separated, businesses destroyed, young people denied education and everyday life suffocated under curfews and lockdowns. Nearly six years on, the prosperity and normality that was promised never materialised. Instead, we see further repression and further deepening of the injustices. Now, with the domicile rules, we are seeing blatant attempts to permanently change the demographics of Kashmir. Let there be no doubt: the right-wing Modi Government have one aim, which is to try to quash the Kashmiri struggle for good. This is a timely debate, as I said at the beginning. While we mark UN Human Rights Day today, let us be clear that Kashmir’s human rights abuses are not isolated or occasional events; they form a systematic pattern of intimidation and control.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will come to that firmly when I get to my asks. The international community cannot continue to ignore Kashmir for the whole number of reasons I have outlined. Let us to turn to the current situation, which has deteriorated sharply since August 2019 when the authoritarian, right-wing Modi Government unilaterally and unconstitutionally revoked articles 370 and 35A. That stripped Jammu and Kashmir of what little autonomy it had, in direct violation of international law, of commitments made to the people of Kashmir and of decades of United Nations resolutions. The consequences were immediate and devastating, with a 150-day communications blackout, mass detentions of political leaders, violent crackdowns across the valley, journalists silenced and civil society dismantled.”
“I thank hon. Members for their excellent contributions. The courage and conviction with which many have spoken will send one message to the British Kashmiri community. There are more than a million British Kashmiris—I am surprised the Minister failed to acknowledge that number. Listening to this debate will be not only more than a million British Kashmiris, but also all those who champion human rights. This issue is not isolated to Kashmiris around the world; it is an issue with international law and human rights at its heart.”
“Frankly, just because lines are decades old does not make them right. We not only lack the moral courage required by the situation, but our silence continues to make us complicit.”
“I absolutely agree. That has been the central theme throughout this debate, and it continues to be the most pressing matter. I will come back to that point, but I first want to pay tribute to the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. Those listening to the debate will at least know there continues to be hope, because there are Members of Parliament who have the moral conviction to stand on the right side and ensure voices of justice and of their constituents continue to be heard. I am disappointed but also grateful to the Minister. He has given me the most time ever to sum up—10 whole minutes. But equally, that shows how little he said. That is not personal to the Minister, because he is following the Government line. As we heard from the Opposition as well, these lines are decades old.”
“It is a strange state of affairs when we cannot stand in this House and say, “Actually, we support United Nations resolutions.” It is not the first time; tragically, we see more and more situations where the international rules-based order is under serious threat. We cannot pick and choose where we say international law should apply. The double standards are now becoming so plain and bare, to be seen by all people. There may well have been a time when that could have been justified because people did not have social media and those truths were not exposed, and perhaps people and Governments could get away with it. That is simply not true now.”
“No. My hon. Friend said many completely baseless things and therefore I will not give him any more time. At the heart of the issue is the fundamental right of a people—promised to them under international law and supported by the international community at that time—for which they have had to wait decade after decade. The Minister was asked how the Government could contribute to making India and Pakistan move towards dialogue. Tragically, that is not possible unless the Government first acknowledge that it is not a bilateral but an international issue. Without acknowledging that, we are unable to take the matter to the UN, because that is not our position. Not once did the Minister even confirm our support for United Nations resolutions.”
“My hon. Friend makes the point that I was coming to about the international picture at the moment. Frankly, it continues to expose time and again the absolute double standards and disrespect for international law, along with the need to reform the United Nations from its current format. Furthermore, it continues to expose the absolute denial to accept certain injustices in the world.”
“I am grateful to the Minister. The point that I made, and make again, is that he did not address the four very simple questions that I put to him. In closing, I again thank all the hon. Members who have spoken passionately and have again shown the Kashmiri community and others that they have a voice in this place. We may not get the response from the Government, but there is an early-day motion that now has the support of over 40 Members from different parties. Later today I will also be giving the Prime Minister a letter signed by over 50 parliamentarians from across the parties. The voice of Kashmiris will never be silenced as long as I am in this place. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for self-determination in Kashmir.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for the huge ambition in this truly transformative Bill. For cities like Bradford, that ambition must translate into real delivery, because Bradford has been left behind for far too long. When will she announce the development of a new, modern train station for Bradford, which will finally give our city the fast, direct connections that we have been denied for far too long? Will she also set out a timetable for progressing full connectivity in the TransPennine route upgrade?”
“There is a reason why millions of people have signed this petition, making it the fourth largest in the history of this place. At the heart of this debate is an attack on our most fundamental and protected of rights: our freedom. We live in a free country, and we do not need a nanny state indirectly spying on its citizens. A compulsory digital ID or a national ID card scheme is not a small administrative tweak that will make lives slightly easier for people; it is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state. Like many others in this place, I have serious concerns about what that means for civil liberties, for privacy and for equality in this country. No Government should ever hold a master key to every part of a citizen’s life, and we cannot pretend that such power could never fall into dangerous hands.”
“In the wrong circumstances, information given in good faith to access childcare, education, healthcare or support can end up being misused. Frankly, trust in our institutions has been eroding for years now.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a reason why millions have signed this petition. The Minister should commit to scrapping it today, but I am not sure he will. As is the case for many hon. Members, thousands of my constituents have quite rightly signed this petition because they know that they are already at the sharp end of state systems that do not always treat them fairly. Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, migrants, older and disabled people, those on low incomes and those who are digitally excluded—these are the people who will feel the impact first if we rush headlong into a digital ID system without thinking through the consequences. We have already seen how data can be misused, both in our country and across the world.”
“We should be investing in digital inclusion, strengthening existing verification systems and putting strict limits on data sharing, not introducing the scheme before us today. Time not permitting any further comment, I want to put on record today my position. Hon. Members may already have gathered what that position may be, but just to be absolutely clear, I stand with the constituents of Bradford East, as I always do, and I will be opposing this dangerous policy.”
“Once the infrastructure for mass identification is built, the pressure to expand its use grows over time. What starts as a way to prove a person’s identity quickly becomes a tool to track where people go, what they access and even who they are with. That is a road that we should be wary of travelling down. The UK has rightly rejected national ID schemes under successive Governments in the past, so again I urge this Government to announce concrete measures—actually, I want them to scrap this scheme today, because I am afraid that it is another one on which they will eventually have to do a U-turn. Three million people have signed a petition, and I think the Minister should announce the scrapping of this dangerous scheme.”
“I have already said that I believe the policy should be scrapped. The hon. Member has his own reasons, and I have outlined mine. One thing we are both agreed on is that trust in institutions is eroding, and families do not feel they can engage even with basic services. If we create a centralised digital identity system, we risk increasing that harm and mistrust. As the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, we risk creating a two-tier system. It is completely absurd that the Government are going above and beyond to connect information that is siloed for very good reason. Governments do not need the ability to casually track their citizens, but that is what the policy will effectively do. We have heard much today—we have been told that this is about efficiency and modernisation—but we must ask: at what cost?”
“Not once today have I heard tribute paid to the many campaign organisations that relentlessly put the case forward and lobbied MPs to scrap the cap. I pay tribute to them, and thank them for all their hard work. This Budget contains some welcome steps—modest moves on redistributing wealth, a tourist tax and a youth guarantee scheme, as well as many other measures—but, frankly, they do not go far enough. This Government have still failed to adopt a genuine wealth tax, and as a result, living standards for most people continue to decline and the cost of living crisis remains unresolved. We could have done so much more in the past 18 months; instead, far too much time has been wasted. That is why I back the plan for a proper wealth tax.”
“I opposed the policy from day one and, frankly, it should not have taken 18 months for this Government to scrap it, but I am none the less pleased that we have. After years of campaigning, the full removal of the two-child limit is hugely welcome. It is a clear vindication of the stand taken by me and other colleagues. What matters most is that with this Budget, at long last, the cruelty that put millions of children into poverty ends. As colleagues have said, the decision will lift millions of children out of poverty. In my constituency, 6,300 families and 22,500 children will benefit. That is a huge step forward and is long overdue, and it is a direct result of relentless pressure from campaigners and MPs who refused to back down.”
“The reality is that, as we take part in this debate, the wealth of billionaires continues to soar while ordinary families in our constituencies continue to struggle with a cost of living crisis that is not of their making. That is the legacy of 14 years of the Conservative party, which has decimated our services and devastated our communities. Perhaps the cruellest of all the Conservatives’ policies was the two-child cap, which put millions of children on our streets and into poverty. Even today, we have heard Conservative Member after Conservative Member oppose the scrapping of the policy. They should be ashamed. In fact, many of them made their speeches and then ran out of the Chamber, because they cannot face the fact that they put millions of children into poverty. This Budget finally abolishes the cruel two-child policy.”
“Frankly, we need to go further. The measures I have outlined would provide a lifeline to struggling families in all our constituencies. It is what our constituents expect of us, and it is about time we delivered that for them.”
“What we need is a wealth tax. Working families need help now. The Government could raise more than £50 billion a year through a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million, equalising capital gains with income tax, cracking down on corporate tax avoidance and implementing a windfall tax on record bank profits—these are modest, moral and reasonable steps. They are what is needed to fund immediate support for struggling families. With that revenue, we could deliver emergency measures immediately to alleviate the cost of living, including not only scrapping the two-child cap, but having direct cost of living grants, introducing more free school meals, tripling the household support fund and relinking local housing allowance to real rents, together costing just £23 billion—less than half of what fair taxation would raise.”
“Does the hon. Lady agree that at the heart of this debate is article 8 of the European convention on human rights? This is a fundamental attack. Let me make myself clear: in attacking article 8, the Home Secretary does not speak for me. Imitating Reform will only lead to further hatred and division on our streets, and that is not the way forward. Forcing people to wait 10, 15 or even 20 years for settlement is not a migration system; it is a punishment regime. It punishes ordinary workers, families and, in particular, children who have built their lives here. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need a fair and humane system, not even harsher hurdles designed to score headlines and create further division and hatred on our streets?”
“As the Government have, quite rightly, imposed widespread sanctions against Russia for its war crimes in Ukraine, they need to do the same against Israel for its war crimes and continued genocide in Gaza.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for leading this important debate. She is quite right that nearly 200,000 people have signed this very important petition at relatively short notice. The reality is that, as well as humanitarian aid not getting in, Israel continues to breach the ceasefire. Hundreds of Palestinians continue to die. Starvation and famine remain a reality for millions of Palestinians. Even basic needs like tents are not being provided, with children having to sleep in contaminated water. Many thousands are already at risk of disease. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government and the international community cannot continue to look on as though the whole situation has been resolved?”
“I join others across this House in welcoming this important Bill, and I welcome and align myself with all the points the Prime Minister has made. Will he join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for his tireless campaigning to push for this law to reach the statute book? The Prime Minister is absolutely right that grieving families have faced the might of the state alone, and were forced to crowdfund lawyers while public bodies hired whole legal armies. Does he agree that, by guaranteeing legal aid at inquests, we can finally end those David and Goliath battles for justice once and for all?”
“Let us be clear: peace cannot exist under impunity. Weeks into the ceasefire, Israel has once again bombed Gaza, killing over 100 Palestinians, including 35 children, as it continues its genocide. Our Government have shamefully yet to reply more than a year and a half after the substantial ruling by the International Court of Justice, which made it absolutely clear that any Government who allow trade with Israel’s settlement economy are complicit in sustaining the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories. British companies continue to trade in goods and financial services with the settlements, undermining our obligations under international law. When will the Government suspend the UK-Israel trade deal and end all trade linked to the settlements, or will the Minister continue to sit back and allow this complicity?”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who the whole House will agree is making an excellent and powerful contribution. I congratulate him on all the hard work that he has done to advance this issue. He is right to set out the essentials of any Bill, including the duty of candour, criminal responsibility, and the criminal sanctions to follow. Does he agree that any attempt to water down the Bill in any way will be rejected and be unacceptable to the House?”
“Q13. Let us be clear in this House: Israel is starving Palestinian children. That is a war crime. Israel is killing Palestinian children as they queue for food. That is a war crime. Our Government have quite rightly imposed thousands of sanctions on Russia for its war crimes in Ukraine. How many more horrors must we witness before the Prime Minister acts with the same scale of sanctions against Israel to stop this genocide? Do Palestinian lives not matter?”