Martin Rhodes MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · West Bank: Forced Displacement · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the forced displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. The Palestinian people face intolerable hardship, suffering and misery. In Gaza, the world witnesses the killing of civilians, the blocking of aid, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, attacks on aid workers and forced displacement. Israel, like any sovereign state, has the right to defend itself and seek the return of its hostages, and Hamas should be held accountable for the attacks on 7 October, but that is not a justification for what is happening now to the Palestinian people. While international attention remains fixed on Gaza and the recent escalation of tension between Israel and Iran, we must not ignore the deepening injustice in the west bank. According to Amnesty International, Israel’s military operations in the occupied west bank over the past four months have led to the largest displacement of Palestinians since the 1967 war. Furthermore, Save the Children reports that almost half of all Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces or settlers in the occupied west bank since records began were killed in the past two years. We need to uphold international law and promote a just peace. This debate provides a small opportunity to highlight the injustice facing Palestinians in the west bank today. There is so much that could be said to fully represent the difficulties that face the lives of Palestinians in the west bank every day in everything from accessing healthcare to having a peaceful existence without harassment or degrading treatment. That is one reason I believe the UK should formally recognise the state of Palestine as soon as possible. I hope the Minister in his response can agree that recognition is not only a matter of justice, but a necessary step to help rebalance negotiations and support the long-term viability of a two-state solution. The situation on the ground continues to deteriorate. The recent increase in the forced displacement of Palestinians in the west bank seems to reflect a growing sense of impunity for increased settlement activities.

• 2 Jul 2025 · West Bank: Forced Displacement · Hansard source

  More

  It is important to note that the International Court of Justice has indeed given the advisory opinion that Israel’s continued presence in Palestinian territory is unlawful. I hope the Minister will refer to that in his remarks. There have long been concerns that the illegal settler movement has aligned with Israeli state policy goals that could not be openly pursued due to international scrutiny. Under the current Israeli Government, the open support for and increase in state-sanctioned illegal settlements give the perception of a political strategy that undermines a two-state solution and risks de facto annexation of the west bank. This debate is not only about illegal settlements, however; it is also about the human cost of the forced displacement of Palestinians. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, 905 people, including 181 children, have been killed in the west bank, and a further 7,370 people have been injured. The UN Human Rights Office has reported rising settler violence, forced displacements and arbitrary detention against Palestinians. Over the last couple of years, 6,400 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced following the demolition of their homes, and a further 2,200 have been uprooted because of settler violence and access limitations. That does not include the approximately 40,000 Palestinians displaced from three refugee camps in the northern west bank because of increased Israeli militarised operations there since January. That is deeply troubling. Those are not just numbers, but daily lived injustices that undermine the prospects for peace and must be addressed with the seriousness they deserve. I continue to believe that the UK should use its voice on the international stage to call for accountability and the protection of civilians in all parts of the occupied territories. I hope the Minister can address that today. Forced displacement in the west bank not just strips Palestinians of their homes, but involves the destruction of vital public services. A recent report from a coalition including UNICEF and Save the Children found that 84 schools across the west bank, including East Jerusalem, are currently subject to pending demolition orders issued by the Israeli authorities. That puts the right to education at risk for some 12,655 students, of whom more than half are girls. In parallel, the World Health Organisation reported more than 500 attacks on healthcare facilities, leading to numerous deaths and injuries, in just under a year after the 7 October 2023 attacks. All children have the right to safely access education and all people have the right to access medical care as enshrined in international and humanitarian law. The attacks on or destruction of those services sends a message that neither health nor the prospects of opportunity are safe under occupation. That is best encapsulated by a quote shared with me by Save the Children. Marah, an eight-year-old girl who lives in the Jenin refugee camp in the west bank, says: “We are scared…There’s a lot of mud, bullets, and they shoot tear gas. Our school isn’t safe. It’s close to the army…I was sitting here, this window shook, and the glass fell. Every day, there is the sound of drones. We’ve kind of gotten used to it a little.” What can be done? In recent months, the UK Government have taken action. I welcome the recent sanctions on individual outposts, settlements and now two far-right Israeli Ministers in an effort by the UK Government to help to secure the west bank for Palestinians and not illegal settlements, but those settlements are now state sanctioned, state funded and state protected. We must go further. There must be a ban on the import of goods to the UK from illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Those settlements remain a significant obstacle to peace—one that the UK must not be responsible for supporting. Ultimately, we need to see the withdrawal of Israel from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the final negotiation towards the recognition of a democratic Palestinian state, including a rebuilt Gaza, in peaceful co-existence with a democratic Israel. I ask the Minister what more the UK Government can do to prevent the west bank from becoming like Gaza, given the escalating violence, increased military operations and forced displacement of Palestinians there in recent months.

• 2 Jul 2025 · West Bank: Forced Displacement · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. We need to make sure that there is a Palestine to first be recognised and then be part of that two-state solution. In May 2025, Israeli Ministers approved 22 new illegal settlements in the west bank—the biggest expansion in decades. Defence Minister Israel Katz, as reported by the BBC, said the move “prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger Israel”. I hope the Minister can address that issue in his remarks. How can we hope for a negotiated two-state solution when the very existence of a Palestinian state is framed as a danger by Israeli Ministers? Since the ’67 war, Israel has occupied the west bank and East Jerusalem, which has led to 160 settlements housing 700,000 Israelis. Those settlements exist alongside an estimated 3.3 million Palestinians under occupation and are widely seen as illegal under international law. Last year, the UN International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion that Israel’s continued presence in Palestinian territory was unlawful. Furthermore, the court said that all settlements should be evacuated due to their establishment and maintenance being in violation of international law.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. Figures from British Transport police show a staggering 47% rise in violence and serious public order offences against rail staff between 2021 and 2024. This epidemic of violence was allowed to escalate under the previous Conservative Government, who failed to act while frontline workers were increasingly put at risk. Does the Prime Minister agree that our transport workers deserve to do their jobs without fear, and will he reaffirm this Labour Government’s commitment to ensuring that train operating companies are held fully accountable for protecting those who keep our railways safe and moving?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Pride Month · Hansard source

  More

  Picking up from what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) said about delays in the process of payments to those dismissed from the armed forces, that experience of delay has been raised with me by my constituent, Paul, who I thank for giving me permission to discuss his story today. Paul loved music from an early age and, at 15, he auditioned to join the Army as a bandsman and passed with flying colours. Later that year, still not yet 16, he did his three-month basic Army training in Aberdeen. It was at that time that he realised he was gay, and his time in the Army became unnecessarily complex and stressful for him as he had to hide his true self. In the summer of 1988, while rehearsing for the Edinburgh Military Tattoo, he was taken aside by the military police. Paul was arrested in front of the entire regimental band and the other bands on parade. He was taken to Edinburgh castle, where the special investigation branch interrogated him for hours. He did not know what to do, so he just denied everything. He was then imprisoned for a week. During that time, he was humiliated and called degrading names. He was hosed down instead of being allowed to wash, and made to do push-ups while a corporal pushed on his back so hard with his drill boots that blood seeped through Paul’s vest. His meals were spat on and defecated in, and when he refused to eat them, they were thrown at him. He was repeatedly asked intrusive, aggressive and detailed questions about his sexual activity. During his time in jail, he was allowed one phone call, which he used to call his mother, who told him to admit that he was gay. Under the sustained pressure from the interrogation and with the advice of his mother, he admitted he was gay and he was dismissed from the Army. In 2017, Paul suffered a mental breakdown. His therapist believed that Paul’s Army experience and flashbacks contributed to that breakdown. Paul has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his Army experiences. We owe it to Paul and all the other LGBT+ veterans that applications for financial payments are processed as quickly as possible and with as little intrusion as possible. My constituent and many other veterans are waiting for justice. I urge colleagues across the House to give their support to the Fighting With Pride campaign on this issue. In Armed Forces Week, let us remember the thousands of military personnel whose service was cut short by dismissal because of their sexuality. Finally, I call on the Government to redouble their efforts to rectify this historic injustice by delivering financial reparations in as timely and considerate a manner as possible.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met the British Transport police, whose Scottish headquarters are in my constituency, to discuss their text service for confidential reporting of non-emergency incidents on the rail network. Earlier this year, I attended a Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association event, at which the union was launching its “Keep transport workers safe” report, which highlights the abuse and harassment faced by staff across our transport systems. Given the vital role that transport workers play in keeping passengers and infrastructure safe, will the Leader of the House give us a debate in Government time on recognising their contribution, and on how best to protect them?

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Mundell; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairing. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her introduction on the petition. My constituency has the second-highest number of signatories to this petition—after Brighton Pavilion—which has also been reflected in my inbox. I thank those constituents for making their views known through signing the petition and through correspondence, and those with a range of different views on the issue for contacting me. [Gill Furniss in the Chair ] This petition refers to people’s self-identity. Let us be clear: all of us have our own identity. How we see ourselves is an integral part of the human condition, and is universal. It is part of how we understand ourselves, how we seek to relate to others, and how we feel about who we are. We all have our own journey to self-identity, and hopefully to acceptance of that identity. Legislation cannot stop that innate self-identification of human nature, but legislation can frame how easily we can live that identity honestly, openly and safely. That is as relevant for trans men and trans women as it is for any human being. Supporting trans people to have their self-identity respected is as important for all of us. That is not a claim for special treatment; it is a call for equality in how people are treated. I believe that we need to modernise, simplify and reform the Gender Recognition Act. That particularly means reviewing adult identity services to ensure that all trans people can access appropriate, timely and high-quality care. Trans people are so often let down by healthcare and support services. That said, I recognise that easier access to gender recognition certificates is meaningful only if it enables trans women and trans men to live with dignity and respect. That brings me to the recent Supreme Court case. It is extremely important to highlight that the Court warned against “reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”, and noted that transgender people are protected under the Equality Act through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Although the ruling clarifies the legal definition of sex in the Equality Act, it does not clarify how the Act should be implemented, or how the Gender Recognition Act interacts with the Equality Act and the right to privacy. There needs to be an inclusive process of working through the Equality Act and its range of protected characteristics. The Supreme Court judgment provides clarity on the legal definition of one of those protected characteristics, but does not in any way negate the importance of the other protected characteristics, including gender reassignment. It is clear that there are complexities in how these protections interrelate, and careful thought must be given to guidance on this. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is due to provide an updated code of practice. I believe that its deliberations must be informed by the voices and lived experience of those affected, and I have written to the commission to that effect. The interim guidance that it has published so far has only highlighted the complexity and the urgent need for appropriate and inclusive consultation and engagement. That process is necessary to avoid institutions and businesses acting in ways that fail to fully take into account the full range of responsibilities in relation to all protected characteristics. Action without a full recognition of responsibilities risks causing harm not only to trans people, but to non-binary individuals and those whose gender expression does not conform to stereotypical expectations of their sex. There is a danger that the law could be implemented in such a way that it forces trans individuals into distressing and unsafe scenarios simply for existing in public spaces. At the same time, it could put public and private organisations potentially in breach of their legal responsibilities and at risk of not protecting effectively those they seek to protect. That is why broad, inclusive consultation is vital. There is a need for actions that are proportionate, risk-based, trauma-informed and inclusive and that have appropriate safeguards and protections for all. The Supreme Court judgment that “sex” in the Equality Act means “biological sex” creates an impossible dilemma for many trans people in everyday situations. A trans man could be legally required to use a women’s changing room because he was assigned female at birth, but because he presents as male he may be challenged or even excluded by staff or other users, who assume he is in the wrong place. At the same time, if he tries to use the men’s changing room—the one that matches his gender identity and appearance—he risks being accused of unlawfully accessing a single-sex service that is not intended for him. Essentially, the situation leaves him and other users of those facilities without a dignified option. I have long campaigned for LGBT+ rights and will continue to do so. We must never lose sight of the fact that real people’s lives are at the heart of the issue. Equality depends on our upholding our shared values such as open-mindedness, and it requires continued advocacy for groups of individuals who are too often marginalised in our society. Trans people have the right to live with dignity, safety and equality under the law. These are worrying times for many, and I share many of the anxieties. I regret the nature of too many of the discussions about these issues, but I remain hopeful that if we listen calmly to each other, there is a way forward rooted in the shared values of inclusivity, respect and equality. With those values, and the actions that need to lead from them, we can all benefit. The denial of the right of one community or one person to be openly and genuinely themselves diminishes us all. It is our challenge as legislators to address these issues. I commend the petitioners for taking the opportunity to remind us in this place of that responsibility. To them, I say thanks.

• 6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. It is clear from this debate that there are systemic weaknesses in how the private parking system is structured and regulated. That is the core issue that I wish to address. One of the two DVLA-accredited trade associations is the International Parking Community. Members of the IPC are granted access to DVLA data to pursue unpaid parking charges. If a constituent receives a penalty charge notice from an IPC member, they are directed to appeal via the Independent Appeals Service, a body accepted by the DVLA for the purpose of handling appeals. Although the IAS is an accredited alternative dispute resolution provider, it is not directly run by the Government. The word “independent” may lead consumers to believe that they are appealing to an impartial Government-run body, but the IAS operates independently of both Government oversight and parking operators. The International Parking Community and the Independent Appeals Service are both trading names of one company, United Trade and Industry Ltd. This overlap raises legitimate concerns about perceived conflicts of interest, as the same corporate entity that profits from private parking companies through membership fees is responsible for overseeing the code of practice and adjudicating disputes under it. This lack of separation, clearly, could undermine trust in the fairness of the process. The IAS asserts that its independence is safeguarded by its use of qualified solicitors or barristers as self-employed adjudicators, all of whom remain anonymous, are duty-bound by their professional codes and are paid fixed fees regardless of appeal outcomes. It is also true that individuals retain the option of appealing a PCN through other means, such as in court, under consumer protection legislation. However, for the average citizen, and particularly for someone without time, resources or legal understanding, the impression of full independence created by the Independent Appeals Service’s name could easily be misleading. At a minimum, the current framework could contribute to a perception of bias and could foster a lack of public confidence. These are precisely the issues that a Government private parking code of practice needs to address. I therefore look forward to the Minister setting out the progress that the Government are making in addressing the issues. I hope to hear about the progress to be made in how private parking is enforced, to ensure greater oversight, consistency and fairness.