Zarah Sultana MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the debate on the proscription of Palestine Action, the hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce), whom I have notified of this point of order, spoke without declaring that he is chair of Labour Friends of Israel and has accepted hospitality and overseas trips funded by private Israel lobby organisations. The House was discussing a non-violent direct action group that directly challenges the Israeli state, which is on trial for genocide against the Palestinian people. Can you advise me on what mechanisms are available to make the British public truly aware of what interests are being represented on the Floor of the House?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will be aware that the High Court has granted Palestine Action permission for a legal challenge. Rather than the Home Secretary, who is not here, rushing this order through Parliament, should it not be delayed until the judicial process has concluded?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  Twenty-one years ago, a human rights barrister stood in court and defended an activist who broke into RAF Fairford trying to disable a bomber to prevent war crimes in Iraq. That became a landmark case in lawful, non-violent direct action against an illegal war. That barrister is now our Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer KC. He argued that it was not terrorism but conscience. Fast-forward to 20 June 2025: two Palestine Action activists entered RAF Brize Norton and sprayed red paint—red paint, not fire—on aircraft linked to surveillance flights over Gaza. Instead of prosecuting them for criminal damage, which is what normally is done, the Home Secretary is using the Terrorism Act 2000 to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group. This is an unprecedented and dangerous overreach of the state. Never before in Britain has it been a crime to simply support a group. This order lumps a non-violent network of students, nurses, teachers, firefighters and peace campaigners—ordinary people, my constituents and yours—with neo-Nazi militias and mass-casualty cults. Palestine Action’s real crime is, we have to be clear, shutting down Elbit Systems sites that arm the Israeli military; its true offence is being audacious enough to expose the blood-soaked ties between this Government and the genocidal Israeli apartheid state and its war machine. Let us be clear: to equate a spray can of paint with a suicide bomb is not just absurd; it is grotesque. It is a deliberate distortion of the law to chill dissent, criminalise solidarity and suppress the truth. Amnesty international, Liberty, over 266 senior lawyers and UN special rapporteurs have all opposed these draconian measures. Even at this late stage, the order should be withdrawn. Under this order, anyone expressing moral support for a proscribed group could face 14 years in prison. That includes wearing a badge, wearing a T-shirt, sharing a post or calling for de-proscription. And journalists have no exemption either: there is no legal protection for reporting favourably, even factually, about Palestine Action. By this weekend, millions of people, including many of our constituents, could be placed under these sweeping restrictions. Let us not forget what is happening in Gaza, where the real crimes are being ignored: hospitals bombed, children starved, and tens of thousands of people killed. Palestinian children now suffer more amputations per capita than children anywhere else on earth. Israel is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice and the Israeli Prime Minister faces an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, yet the Government’s response is to criminalise solidarity and to continue exporting lethal F-35 jets that are decimating Gaza. We also have to understand the history of this country and what built our democracy: the tradition of civil disobedience that includes the suffragettes, without whom I would not have the vote, let alone the privilege of being here as an MP. Even those who oppose Palestine Action’s tactics must recognise the vast gulf between criminal damage and terrorism. If this order passes, what and who is next—climate protesters, striking workers, feminists in the street? Already we have seen a wider crackdown on our civil liberties—musicians censored, journalists arrested, and demonstrators, including MPs sitting here, harassed—and now this Government want to use anti-terror laws to make peaceful protest itself a crime. If our democratic institutions functioned as they should, none of this would be necessary. To conclude, if this proscription passes, as it will, we have to understand that no campaign will be safe tomorrow. We have to recognise that this will go down as a dark day in our country’s history and one that will be remembered: people will ask, “Which side were you on?” and I stand with the millions of people who oppose genocide, because I am one of them. I oppose the blood-soaked hands of this Government trying to silence us. So I say this loudly and proudly on Wednesday 2 July 2025—

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  It is a disgrace that the Foreign Secretary is not here, but it is unsurprising. The majority of the British public support a full arms embargo on Israel, yet this Labour Government have continued to supply arms exports, including components for lethal F-35 fighter jets, thereby enabling genocide. Those jets are not used in Ukraine, so Ministers need to stop saying that at the Dispatch Box. The Government have also defended this indefensible policy in court, claiming they have seen “no evidence” of genocide. The evidence is overwhelming—we know it, the Minister knows it and the Government know it. Does the Minister understand that through the decisions he makes every single day, he is personally complicit in genocide?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  While the Government pledge to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP, funnelling hundreds of billions in public money to arms companies and their shareholders, and continuing to arm Israel’s genocide in Gaza, they are at the same time slashing disability benefits, keeping millions of children in poverty through the two-child benefit cap, and cutting winter fuel support for pensioners. How do the Government justify finding billions for war, while claiming there is nothing for the poor?

• 20 May 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  Between October and December 2024, the Government approved export licences worth more than £127 million for Israel, exceeding the total approved under the Tories between 2020 and 2023. The equipment funded by those licences, granted after the Government’s so-called temporary suspension, includes components for lethal F-35 fighter jets—jets that Israel is now flying at five times the usual rate, decimating Gaza. Children are starving, families have been wiped out and hospitals have been destroyed, yet the Government claim in court that there is “no evidence” that Israel targets civilians. The Foreign Secretary is personally responsible, and refuses to ban all arms sales to this genocidal state. Like many people throughout Britain, I have to ask the Foreign Secretary: how do you sleep at night?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q14. Last week, humanitarian law organisations applied for an arrest warrant for Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar over alleged war crimes in Gaza, including the siege of Kamal Adwan hospital and the torture of its director, Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, yet the red carpet was rolled out. Sa’ar has justified blocking vital humanitarian aid into Gaza, backed the illegal annexation of Palestinian land and rejected a Palestinian state. The Prime Minister is a human rights lawyer, so surely he knows that the UK has a legal duty to uphold international law. Why, then, did he block the arrest of an unindicted war criminal?

• 22 Apr 2025 · “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling · Hansard source

  More

  In Britain today, trans women are denied safe housing, refused essential healthcare and left waiting years for gender-affirming treatment. This is not accidental; it is the result of a climate of hostility against a marginalised community, fuelled by people in positions of power, including in this very Chamber. Let me be clear: trans people are not a debate, a culture war or an ideology; they are human beings, and trans rights are human rights. Will this Government ensure that they do not pander to hate? Will they reverse their damaging roll- back of LGBT+ rights, including the ban on puberty blockers, and unequivocally defend the Equality Act and the protections that it provides for trans people across the UK?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  The UK is the 6th richest country in the world, yet more than one in three children and 25% of adults live in poverty. Since Labour came into power, 25,000 more children have been pushed into poverty due to the two-child benefit cap. Now, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, more than 250,000 people will be pushed into poverty as a result of these cuts, including 50,000 children. I ask the Chancellor, who earns over £150,000 annually, who has accepted £7,500-worth of free clothing and who recently took freebie tickets to see Sabrina Carpenter, does she think that austerity 2.0 is the change that people really voted for?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Resolution Foundation has warned that as a result of cuts in PIP, 620,000 people could lose about £675 a month, with the poorest families hit the hardest. Given that 870,000 children live in PIP-receiving households and 290,000 of them are already living below the poverty line, how can the Government justify pushing more disabled people and children into poverty rather than pursuing fairer alternatives, such as a 2% wealth tax on assets worth more than £10 million, which would raise £24 billion—five times as much as the suggested savings from the proposed cuts? Is “austerity 2.0” really the change that people voted for?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise in support of new clause 23, tabled in my name, which seeks to extend mandatory relationships, sex and health education to all young people aged 16 to 18 in further education, sixth form and apprenticeship settings. RSHE is currently compulsory only to the end of key stage 4, when students are 16 years old, but young people remain in education or training until the age of 18. That creates a dangerous gap, in which thousands of young people are left without the vital education they need to stay safe and informed during a crucial and vulnerable period of their lives. Government data paints a stark picture. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 16 to 19-year-olds experience the highest rates of domestic abuse of any age group, with 8% reporting incidents in the past year. That is precisely the age when young people are beginning to explore intimate relationships—a time when they need guidance on recognising coercive control, domestic abuse and harmful behaviours. We all know the tragic consequences of ignoring that gap. The recent case of Kyle Clifford, who murdered Carol, Louise and Hannah Hunt after reportedly being influenced by the misogynistic views of Andrew Tate, reminds us that toxic narratives can take root when young people are unable to access to reliable and positive education about healthy relationships and respect. That topic has also been powerfully explored in the new Netflix series “Adolescence” by Stephen Graham, which addresses the impact of misogynistic and harmful ideologies, particularly among vulnerable young people. The series, which I recommend to everyone, highlights how a lack of proper education in relationships and self-worth can leave young people susceptible to dangerous and controlling behaviour. Put simply, we cannot allow harmful voices to fill the vacuum that education should occupy. Education is not just important; it is lifesaving. Providing young people with clear lessons on consent, coercive control and domestic abuse would give them the tools to identify harmful behaviour and seek help when they need it. Without that, we leave young people across the country vulnerable to manipulation, abuse and harm. Survivors have bravely shared their stories, illustrating the tragic cost of inaction. Faustine Petron, a survivor who founded the “Make It Mandatory” campaign, has spoken powerfully about how education could have changed her life. Having experienced domestic abuse at just 16, she said: “If I had received mandatory education on healthy relationships and coercive control in sixth form, I truly believe I would have recognised the signs of abuse earlier and sought support—before it escalated into four years of serious violence. Those are years I can never get back. Years when I should have just been a child.” Another parent who supported the 100,000-strong online petition shared their heartbreak: “My daughter ended her life in January 2022, aged 21, because she was in a coercive and controlling relationship and was abused on every level. The perpetrator was the boy she met at school and had known since she was 12 years old.” And another signatory said: “I wish I’d known about coercive control at 16 when I entered an abusive relationship and stayed in it for 9 years. I thought that because there was no physical violence, it couldn’t be abuse. Teenagers need educating about this.” Those stories are not isolated. Reports from the “Everyone’s Invited” platform highlighted that 142 further education and sixth-form colleges in England were named in testimonies of sexual violence. Those shocking accounts demand urgent action. New clause 23 has broad support. The Women and Equalities Committee recommended such a change in 2023. The chief medical officer, the Children’s Commissioner and organisations such as Brook, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and the Sex Education Forum have all called for RSHE to be extended to 16-to-18 education providers. Ultimately, the new clause is a matter of prevention and protection. It is about giving young people the tools to identify unhealthy relationships, to know where to turn for help, and to foster respect and understanding in their personal lives. By extending RSHE to all young people in education until the age of 18, we can save lives, prevent harm and build a safer society for everyone. That is not just the right thing to do; it is the necessary thing to do. I urge Members from across the House to support my new clause, as well as new clause 34 in the name of the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), which would extend free school meals to all primary school pupils—a campaign that I, alongside other Labour Members, have proudly supported for a long time. It is up to us to ensure that no young person is left behind without the necessary education and food that they need to stay safe, healthy and empowered.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud trade unionist and a member of Unite the union. I have been supported from across the labour movement with the cleanest money in politics, which I do not think Conservative Members can say about themselves. For over a year, Swedish Tesla workers have been on strike demanding the basic right to collective bargaining. Their struggle has inspired solidarity across industries. Postal workers, painters, electricians, cleaners and dock workers have all launched secondary action in support. Denmark’s largest trade union, 3F Transport, has also joined the fight, preventing Danish dock workers and drivers from handling Tesla shipments bound for Sweden. This level of solidarity is possible because Swedish trade unions are not shackled by restrictive laws designed to suppress collective action. Unlike here in the UK, the legislative landscape in Sweden does not act against the interests of organised labour. Almost 90% of Swedish workers are covered by collective agreements, and their labour laws ensure that workers have the right to negotiate and defend their conditions without undue interference. As a result, Swedish trade unions are more than a match for billionaires like Elon Musk. When Tesla refused to sign a collective agreement, it was not just Tesla workers who fought back—the entire trade union movement did. That is what real industrial democracy looks like, and it is a powerful reminder of what British workers have been denied for too long by some of the most draconian anti-union legislation in the western world. While I welcome the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and much of the Trade Union Act 2016, the fact remains that many of the worst Thatcher-era anti-union laws are still in place. One of the most damaging is section 224 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which makes secondary action unlawful. That ban on sympathy strikes isolates workers, weakens their bargaining power and prolongs disputes—all to the benefit of exploitative employers. That is why I have tabled new clause 31 to repeal that restriction and return power to working people. Secondary action built the trade union movement as we know it. It helped us secure the very rights that we all benefit from today. But in an era of outsourcing and subcontracting, the ban is even more harmful than it was three decades ago. Under current legislation, two workers performing the same job in the same workplace cannot take industrial action together if one is directly employed and the other is outsourced. Employers exploit that loophole to divide workers. They shift responsibility through complex corporate structures, like what we are seeing at Coventry University in my constituency, and undermine union action by transferring work or hiving off companies. Workers are even prevented from taking action against parent companies and suppliers during disputes. In many ways, secondary action is more essential than ever in the fight for fair pay and conditions. Most European nations, including Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands, allow secondary action in some form. Even those with restrictions, such as Germany, France and Spain, stop short of imposing an outright ban. Labour’s new deal for working people committed to repealing anti-union laws and ensuring that the UK’s industrial action laws comply with international obligations, including those under the International Labour Organisation and the European social charter. Yet, as it stands, the Bill fails to deliver on that promise. International bodies have repeatedly condemned the UK’s ban on secondary action. The European Committee of Social Rights and the ILO criticised the UK for that restriction most recently in 2023 after the P&O Ferries scandal, when 800 crew members were sacked via video call and replaced with agency workers. P&O knew that it could get away with its disgraceful actions because the law prevents other workers from striking in solidarity. I also support a number of amendments, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), such as new clause 61, which would define employment status in law to end bogus self-employment. That is long overdue. For too long, employers have exploited gaps in employment law to deny workers basic rights. Today, in our country, black and Asian workers are disproportionately trapped in precarious, low-paid jobs on bogus self-employment contracts and denied statutory sick pay, holiday pay and protection from unfair dismissal. This two-tier system must end. Every single worker deserves dignity and respect in the workplace, and by strengthening the Bill with these amendments, we would be taking a step forward towards rebuilding the power of the working class. I urge Members across the House to stand on the right side of history and with the workers who keep this country running.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. In October 2023 in an interview with LBC, the Prime Minister said:“I think Israel does have that right”,when asked whether cutting off power and water to Gaza was appropriate. For 11 days now, Israel has blocked the entry of vital goods and aid into Gaza, subjecting over 2 million people to collective punishment and starvation. Israel’s decision to cut off electricity to a plant supplying drinking water to half a million people is yet another blatant violation of international law, and further evidence of genocide against the Palestinian people. In the light of these facts, does the Prime Minister still maintain that Israel is not committing genocide?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Hon. Members might not realise it from some of the speeches that we have heard, but this Bill is actually about people—people fleeing war, persecution and unimaginable hardship. The repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act and parts of the Illegal Migration Act is welcome, because those cruel, unworkable policies undermined our international obligations and put lives at risk. This Bill still falls short, however, because it retains harmful provisions, such as section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, which deems asylum claims from countries such as Albania, Georgia and India inadmissible. Those are not universally safe countries—just ask the LGBT community in Georgia, journalists in Albania, or Kashmiris and religious minorities in India. Survivors of trafficking and torture from those nations seek refuge here, so denying them asylum based on nationality alone is unjust and risks returning them to danger. Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act is equally appalling. It denies protections to victims of modern slavery if they have a criminal record, ignoring that many are coerced into crime by traffickers. Punishing victims for their own exploitation is not just cruel; it is a failure of justice. Section 12 further weakens judicial scrutiny of immigration detention, letting the Secretary of State determine what constitutes a reasonable period. That strips away legal safeguards and allows indefinite detention by ministerial order. Sections 12, 29 and 59 also risk breaching the European convention on human rights and should be repealed. The Bill also introduces new offences that could see refugees prosecuted simply for seeking safety—a deeply troubling approach. In reality, these measures will punish desperate individuals rather than the smugglers who exploit them. Let us be clear: no one risks their life crossing the channel in a flimsy boat unless they have no other choice. Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, put it plainly: “Criminalising men, women and children who have fled conflicts in countries such as Sudan does not disrupt the smuggling gangs’ business model. When a refugee is clambering into a boat with an armed criminal threatening them, they are not thinking about UK laws but are simply trying to stay alive. The most effective way to break the smuggling gangs’ grip is to stop refugees from getting into the boats in the first place, which means giving them a legal way to apply for asylum in the UK without crossing the Channel.” Yet this Bill fails to do that. The Bill continues to treat desperate people as criminals rather than addressing the reasons that they are forced into dangerous crossings in the first place, and it fuels toxic rhetoric that breeds hate and division. We have all seen the consequences of that: asylum hotels named by MPs in this Chamber have been targeted by far-right rioters who set them alight. I have said it before and I will say it again: the enemy of the working class travels by private jet, not migrant dinghy. When politicians and the right-wing press deliberately stoke anti-migrant sentiment, they distract us from the real issues: a system that prioritises profit over people, that slashes our public services, that gives tax breaks to the wealthy and that allows inequality to flourish. This Bill could have ended the hostile environment, but it doubles down on the same failed policies by criminalising refugees, denying protection to survivors and failing to provide safe routes. As an MP representing Coventry, a proud city of sanctuary enriched by generations of immigration, I demand better. We need a system that upholds human rights and international law and is built on fairness, compassion and humanity, not more failed, punitive policies. We need safe, legal routes for asylum seekers, family reunification and protections for trafficking survivors. This Bill, however, entrenches injustice instead of ending it.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will focus on the powers in the Bill that force banks to trawl through our private financial data, scanning for indicators of fraud and error—indicators that are not publicly disclosed —and flag those individuals to the Government. These powers will allow the Department for Work and Pensions to seize money directly from bank accounts without due process, suspend driving licences and even search properties and personal devices. They are not the hallmarks of a free and democratic society but the tools of an Orwellian surveillance state. Let me be clear: we all agree that genuine fraudsters should be held to account, especially multimillionaire tax avoiders, organised criminal gangs and the dodgy companies that exploited covid funding. However, the Bill goes far beyond that. It will subject millions of innocent people—disabled individuals, carers, jobseekers, pensioners and parents—to unwarranted financial surveillance, treating them as suspects by default, simply because they receive state support. It is deeply unjust. The Government already have extensive powers to investigate suspected fraud; under existing legislation, they can access bank accounts where there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. However, the Bill removes the need for suspicion altogether. Put simply, this is mass surveillance. There are significant risks. We have already seen the devastating consequences of automated decision making in the Post Office Horizon scandal, where faulty software led to hundreds of wrongful prosecutions. The Bill risks repeating that injustice on an unprecedented scale, and we should not have to wait for an ITV drama to expose it in the future. The DWP has already made mistakes in accusing benefit claimants of debt. Last July, The Big Issue reported that a disabled woman had her disability benefits stopped and was accused of owing the Government £28,000, which the DWP later admitted was its mistake, while a single mother was accused of a £12,000 debt when the DWP actually owed her money. Algorithm-driven financial surveillance will inevitably result in errors that will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in our society: the elderly, the disabled and those already struggling to make ends meet. Even a 1% error rate in the AI system used by banks could lead to thousands of benefit recipients being wrongly flagged, unfairly investigated and forced into lengthy appeals. Moreover, the Government’s own impact assessment suggests that these measures would recover just £146 million annually, which is less than 2% of the estimated annual loss to fraud and error. In contrast, £23 billion in benefits and support goes unclaimed each year, while £3 billion in claims is underpaid. Yet the Bill does absolutely nothing to address those injustices or to build a security system based on dignity and respect; instead, it targets those who can least afford to be wrongly flagged as fraudsters. This legislation represents a rushed process with little scrutiny. At 116 pages long, the Bill was scheduled for Second Reading just seven working days after First Reading. It is an attempt to push through mass surveillance powers with minimal debate, bypassing the necessary checks and balances that should apply to any policy, especially one that affects millions of people’s fundamental rights. The powers are also legally questionable, with privacy experts warning they could breach article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Bill risks creating a two-tier justice system—one for the very wealthy, who will never face this kind of intrusion, and another for those on benefits, who will be subject to constant scrutiny, automated checks and the threat of their money being seized, perpetuating harmful stereotypes about so-called benefits cheats. It will therefore also distract attention away from the millions of households that are legitimately supported by a social security system that exists to support every single one of us when we need it. Civil society groups including Amnesty International, Big Brother Watch, Disability Rights UK and Age UK have all condemned the powers, warning they will entrench discrimination against the poorest and the most vulnerable. We cannot allow that to happen. We cannot allow the Government to turn our banks into agents of the state, spying on their customers and reporting back to Whitehall; we cannot allow the presumption of innocence to be eroded by a culture of suspicion and surveillance; and we cannot stand idly by while the most vulnerable in our communities bear the brunt of this overreach. This is not the change people voted for. I therefore urge the Government to remove clause 74 and schedule 3 from the Bill.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Sudan and Eastern DRC · Hansard source

  More

  According to UN experts the UAE has been providing arms and support to the Rapid Support Forces through its networks in Libya, Chad, the Central African Republic, South Sudan and Uganda. Those arms and supplies have reportedly been disguised as humanitarian aid, raising serious concerns about the UAE’s role in exacerbating conflict and suffering in Sudan. The UAE is one of the UK’s largest arms buyers, with billions of pounds worth of defence exports licensed in recent years. Given the gravity of those allegations, and the UK’s obligations under international law, will the Government commit to ending all arms sales to the UAE unless it can be unequivocally verified that they are no longer supplying the RSF?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Last November, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes, including targeting civilians and using starvation as a weapon of war. The British public deserve clarity, so I will ask again: will the Foreign Secretary confirm that should Benjamin Netanyahu step on British soil, he would be immediately arrested—yes or no?

• 29 Nov 2024 · National bus fare cap · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of the United Kingdom regarding the Government’s decision to increase the bus fare cap by 50%. More than 105,000 people have signed a related change.org petition. The £2 fare cap introduced in January 2020 has been a lifeline for people, providing access to work, medical appointments and family connections during a period of mounting financial strain. Despite the crisis being far from over, the Government plan to raise the cap to £3 in January 2025, adding hundreds to annual commuter costs and risking isolation of vulnerable individuals. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reconsider the cap increase, and call for sufficient support to ensure that affordable public transport remains accessible and sustainable through 2025 and beyond. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Coventry South, Declares that when the £2 bus fare cap was introduced in January 2020, it became a crucial lifeline for people across the country who rely on buses to get to work, attend medical appointments and visit family; further that this cap was introduced specifically to address the cost-of-living crisis, ensuring that bus travel remained affordable and accessible as households felt financial pressures intensify; further that despite the cost-of-living crisis being far from over, the government now plans to raise the fare cap to £3 from January 2025; further that a £1 increase could add hundreds of pounds to annual costs for daily commuters and may isolate others entirely from essential services and community support; and notes the positive impact of the £2 fare cap on people, especially for those in rural areas, where public transport options are more limited. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reconsider changes to the £2 bus fare cap, and to provide adequate support through 2025 to ensure that public transport is made easier, cheaper and more accessible. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003021]

• 25 Nov 2024 · Storm Bert · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My thoughts are with all those affected by Storm Bert. As chair of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group, I express my solidarity and thanks to all our emergency services, including firefighters on the frontline. Extreme weather events are on the rise and are becoming ever more frequent as a result of climate change, highlighting the urgent need for proper funding and resources. England is the only part of the UK without a statutory duty for flooding, leaving fire services underfunded and under-resourced to respond effectively. That must change. As the FBU has long called for, when will the Government finally provide a statutory duty for fire and rescue authorities to respond to flooding incidents in England? Furthermore, in our election manifesto the Government committed to developing a national structure to inform policy and standards in the fire and rescue service. When will that be implemented? Finally, will the FBU be invited to the floods resilience taskforce to ensure that the voice of firefighters is heard in shaping flood resilience strategies?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants · Hansard source

  More

  Despite what the Minister has said, the Government conceded at the royal courts of justice last week that UK-made F-35 parts could be used in violation of international law in Gaza, and admitted that Israel has shown no commitment to upholding these legal obligations. Despite this, the Government have continued to authorise offensive F-35 arms exports, exposing themselves to criminal liability. It is disappointing that the Foreign Secretary is not here today, but will the Minister let our constituents know whether the Government will end their complicity in genocide, impose sanctions and end all arms sales? Will he confirm that should Netanyahu, who faces an ICC arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity, enter UK territory, he will be immediately arrested—yes or no?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  The nightmare unfolding in Gaza is a deliberate, unparalleled human catastrophe. This is not merely a crisis; this is genocide and extermination. Those are not just my words but the conclusions of the UN commission of inquiry. In northern Gaza, more than 400,000 Palestinians are trapped under relentless Israeli bombardment. Families fleeing are gunned down and so-called safe zones are turned into death traps. Children are killed on the streets, with five to nine-year-olds the most killed age group in Gaza. Families are burned alive by incendiary weapons. Hospitals, schools and refugee camps are obliterated. Since 1 October, essential aid has been blocked by Israel. Gaza is starving and its health system has collapsed. Diseases such as polio have returned, and the UN describes the situation as “apocalyptic”. The so-called humanitarian zones in southern Gaza offer no refuge. Over 1 million people are crammed into unliveable conditions. They are not evacuations; they are forced transfers and war crimes under international law. Furthermore, escape routes are bombed. People are trapped with nowhere to go. Over 90% of Gaza’s infrastructure has been destroyed, making return impossible. That is ethnic cleansing. Israeli officials brazenly promised it and delivered it. The International Criminal Court and UN experts also confirm it. Targeting civilians, blocking aid and destroying survival infrastructure meet the legal criteria of genocide, despite what the Prime Minister says at Prime Minister’s questions. So what has the UK done? Far from neutral, the UK is an active participant in genocide. British-made components are part of every single F-35 fighter jet raining down death on Gaza. Every single bomb dropped and every single life lost bears the stain of British support. Such complicity is undeniable. Yesterday, in a hearing at the royal courts of justice, the Government admitted two chilling facts. First, there is a clear risk that UK-made F-35 parts could be used in violations of international humanitarian law. Secondly, the Government’s own assessment, made on 24 July 2024, concluded that Israel is not committed to complying with international humanitarian law. Those admissions trigger the UK’s legal obligation under criterion 2c of the strategic export licence criteria, which states that exports cannot be allowed if there is a clear risk of misuse. Despite that, the Government have allowed exports to continue for five weeks, during which over 1,700 Palestinians were killed. The Defence Secretary has defended this carve-out for F-35s, prioritising “US confidence in the UK” over Palestinian lives. How disturbing. The UK Government have a duty to prevent and punish genocide. By refusing to act, they risk not only complicity, but criminal liability.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 18 Nov 2024 · Bus Funding · Hansard source

  More

  More than 62,000 people have already signed my petition on change.org to protect the £2 bus fare cap. One young person explained how rising fares made it increasingly difficult for them to get to college, while another described public transport as a vital lifeline against loneliness. Affordable public transport is essential not only to alleviating economic hardship, but to addressing the climate crisis. Instead of increasing the fare cap by 50% to £3 and costing ordinary people hundreds of pounds more each year, why do the Government not take a page from the book of Greater Manchester’s Labour Mayor, Andy Burnham, who has committed himself to maintaining the £2 fare cap to ensure that public transport remains accessible to everyone?

• 6 Nov 2024 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This concerns the lack of response to my cross-party correspondence addressed to the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, and the Defence Secretary, dated 13 September 2024. In that letter I, along with 36 parliamentary colleagues, requested clarification on the Government’s decision to exempt offensive F-35 fighter jet components from the 30 out of 350 licences that they have suspended for items that could be used in Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza, as there is a clear risk that they may be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law. Given the significance of the issue and its implications for the UK’s international obligations, it is imperative that MPs receive a comprehensive response. Having to wait two months for a reply raises questions—