Oral Answers to Questions

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to support the Gaza peace plan.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to support the Gaza peace plan.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

15. What steps she is taking to help secure a just and lasting peace in Gaza.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. Given the horrendous suffering that we have seen over the last two years, we need to ensure that the ceasefire holds. Part of that involves getting the humanitarian aid into Gaza. We are urging for more crossings to be opened and for restrictions on humanitarian aid to be lifted, and we are working on some of the crucial next steps, in conjunction with the US, Arab states and many other states that have been involved in supporting the ceasefire, including through the disarmament of Hamas and the development of new governance arrangements.

[Warinder Juss]

Despite the most welcome peace plan, we have already seen breaches in the form of Israeli air strikes, with the restriction of lifesaving supplies entering Gaza. What are we doing to ensure that sufficient humanitarian aid can get through to end the famine swiftly, and that the Israeli leadership is held accountable for violations of international law, so that we can finally see an end to the conflict, with no more innocent Palestinian or Israeli lives being lost?

[Yvette Cooper]

It is important that all sides hold to the ceasefire and implement all the steps committed to as part of President Trump’s 20-point peace plan. That involves getting the humanitarian aid in place and maintaining the ceasefire. We are working with the US and other countries to support an effective monitoring arrangement so that there can be a proper process in place to ensure that all sides hold to the ceasefire and keep moving forward.

Black History Month

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak in the debate. I am proud to be the son of an Irish immigrant. My dad Richard came over to the UK with his family when he was a young boy. They were looking for safe accommodation and paid work. I remember him sitting me down when I was a young boy, and telling me that his family, when in search of those things, would often come across two notices: “No Irish” and “No Blacks”. To learn that at such a young age, and to understand that prejudice was so built into our society, fired in me a desire to fight racism. It also continues to shock me, because that was not the distant past, but very recent indeed. This Black History Month, we celebrate the black men and black women who shaped Britain’s history—Bournemouth’s too—but we must also remember what many of them were forced to endure.

I am proud to represent Bournemouth East. Bournemouth is a young upstart—we can compare it with Christchurch, which is 1,200 years old, and Poole, which is 800 years old—that was really built from scratch only about 200 years ago. It was made by people who came from London and the home counties. It is, and has always been, a melting pot, and it is proud of that. It is a beautiful place to live, work and be, and I am proud that it is such an inclusive place.

Because Bournemouth is such a young town, black history is built into what Bournemouth has been. I think of Thomas Lewis Johnson, who was born into slavery in Virginia in 1826 and experienced slavery’s full brutality—physical punishment, harsh labour, the denial of basic human rights, and the mental trauma that will have gone with all that—but eventually he found his freedom. He became a minister and travelled the world preaching hope and equality. In the 1890s, he made Boscombe in Bournemouth his home, and he named his house Liberia in tribute to African independence. He became a British citizen in 1900 and, supported by a local community who recognised his courage, was able to do such things as write his autobiography, “Twenty-Eight Years a Slave”, in Bournemouth. It tells a story of faith, resilience and humanity. In it, he wrote,

“Though my body was confined my spirit remained free, and it was faith that guided me through the darkest hours.”

I am also thinking about Lilian Bader, who broke barriers of her own decades later. When racial discrimination kept people of Caribbean heritage out of the armed forces, she refused to accept it. In 1941 she became the first black woman to serve in the Royal Air Force, training as an instrument repairer and rising to acting corporal. After the war, she earned a degree, became a teacher and settled in Bournemouth with her family, and that legacy of service continued through her sons. She said,

“Father served in the First World War, his three children served in the Second World War. I married a coloured man who was in the Second World War, as was his brother who was decorated for bravery in Burma. Their father also served in the First World War. Our son was a helicopter pilot, he served in Northern Ireland. So all in all, I think we’ve given back more to this country than we’ve received.”

That legacy of service and that history—that Black history—is British history, and it is Bournemouth’s history. Their contributions call us to keep on building a town and a country where everyone’s contribution is seen, valued and celebrated.

I want to pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). It is absurd that we cram black history into a month, and that we do not have a requirement for it to be taught in our curriculum. We rely on teachers—who are already frazzled by their heavy workload, and who have been looking for light at the end of the tunnel for so many years—to do the research, and to find the resources and time to teach black history, as well as other history, such as that of the civil rights campaign that led to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the history of gender equality, and LGBT+ history. We need to entrench the struggles of our country in the teaching of our curriculum, so that the children we raise know fully, as citizens, what our country has been through, and what its story will be. That is particularly true because, unfortunately, those contributions are being erased.

Nobody in Bournemouth should feel uncomfortable, unsafe or undervalued, yet I know all too well just how many black and Asian members of my community have felt targeted and excluded. I am thinking of a recent surgery appointment; a young black medical professional came and talked about his desire to live in Britain all his life. He said he would finish his shift, and on leaving the hospital, he would have to look over his shoulder, because he was concerned about being attacked. I heard the same story from an employee at Bournemouth university. I also think of an email that I received recently from the mum of a lovely young lad I know in Bournemouth called Dan. The message said:

“Lots of us out here silently vibrating on an axis of vigilance—anxiety, powerlessness, anger—wondering when the violence will touch us and our loved ones.”

That woman describes herself as a London exile. She moved to Bournemouth for a better life and a more tolerant society, and now, in this day and age, she is worried about her young boy having to experience the violence that she fled when she left London. She says that in London, she saw the British National party rampaging in the streets where she lived, and she worries that is coming to Bournemouth. It should be no surprise, and no shock, that I, as their Member of Parliament, will say that black lives matter. Before it was a political movement or a social organisation, it was a statement of fact, and it remains one. Black lives are important, yet some, in their actions and words, seek to cast doubt on that truth.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He has mentioned people who have come to this country and contributed greatly. As he and other Members have said, the problems we face are ones that we did not think we would see in this day and age. Only last week, I posted a photograph of myself out door-knocking and speaking to constituents, and somebody posted, “Another foreigner representing Wolverhampton.” I grew up being racially attacked, including physically, because I wore a turban and because of the colour of my skin, but even so, the comment shocked me, because I did not expect to hear it in present times. When I was thinking of how I would respond to that person, I wondered whether I should point out that 60% of NHS workers were not born in this country. As I was formulating a response, somebody responded, “Well, why don’t you stand at the next general election?”. I thought that that was a really good way of countering the comment.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to face these issues, and that we need allies—people who are not black —to take part in Black History Month? That is how we will tackle the racism that people like me still feel. Anybody in public service will feel vulnerable, so we need as many people as possible to take part in this movement, and in the celebration of Black History Month.

[Tom Hayes]

I found my hon. Friend’s words very moving, and I appreciate his testimony. That will have been hard to share in the Chamber, but it is so important that he did, and I am sorry that he is going through those experiences. I agree with him entirely. I sometimes hesitate to contribute to these debates, because I do not want to take time from colleagues who have first-hand, direct experience of what it is like as a black person, but my hon. Friend has picked up on a really important point: allyship at this time is crucial. I will do everything I can to stand up for both my hon. Friend and the black people I represent, and I know that colleagues in this Chamber will do exactly the same. We must stand against racism.

On that point, it concerns me deeply that we have had a summer of such discontent, which promises to be a longer period of unfortunate hatred. Flying the flag should unite us, not divide us. One of my earliest memories is seeing Linford Christie draping the Union flag around himself after winning the Olympic gold in 1992. It was a wonderful moment, yet at present, there are people whose intention in flying the national flag is to exclude.

When the intention behind flying the flag is to cheer on our national sports team, it brings pride and belonging; it creates the joy and happiness that our country strives for. But when the intention is so deliberately to intimidate, and so consciously to exclude some people in my town of Bournemouth and across our country, it can only ever fuel the rising tide of racism that I know we all in this Chamber and across our country wish to reject. It makes no sense to me—indeed, it feels not just wrong and unfair but illogical—that, in some cases, the flag is flown in celebration of black and Asian footballers, and in other situations, it is flown to make their communities feel unwelcome. We should stop that. We should come together. We should unite as one country.

Let us not merely honour Black History Month in words and speeches, perhaps with the announcement of a statue, and with a further debate next year and the year after, in which we commit to doing things. Let us take action. Let us build a future in which equality is our shared legacy. I say that particularly to my constituents in Bournemouth, because we have been rocked by a summer of discontent, with frequent protests, which seem to have coincided with many years of feeling lost and hopeless.

Bournemouth is a young town, but over the course of its history, it settled into who it was. It was a seaside town, and people knew what our industry and our sectors were about. In recent years, with austerity and the loss of key employers, the town has lost its way a bit. It is looking to tell a different story. It is looking to tell a story of inclusion, hope and happiness. Just as black history has always been key to Bournemouth’s history, the contributions of black boys, girls, men and women will be key to Bournemouth as it finds its new story. We will move forward together, united against racism, and determined to build an equal, fair and just society under one flag.

Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing the debate, although I have to say that I disagree with everything he said.

The Equality Act represented a pivotal change in our society and in our law, to create a kinder, more inclusive and equal Britain. I am grateful that, by and large, our society continues to uphold those values 15 years after the Act’s initial creation. However, I am here today to speak about a form of discrimination that is only partially covered by the Equality Act: caste discrimination, which certainly should not exist in British society. In 2010, the Labour Government included the legal power in section 9(5)(a) of the Equality Act, as amended, to outlaw caste-based discrimination in the UK. In 2013, Parliament changed that to a legal duty on Ministers to outlaw caste discrimination. Five years later, the Tory Government decided to get rid of that provision, but successive Governments did nothing about it.

Despite calls from authorities such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, and organisations such as the National Secular Society and the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance, there has been no move to implement section 9(5)(a). Indeed, the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance found that nearly one in 10 respondents in Britain say that they have experienced verbal abuse on the basis of caste discrimination, and that the same number report that they have missed out on promotion at work because of their caste.

Despite its good provisions, the Equality Act does not explicitly list caste as a protected characteristic, despite the amendments made back in 2013, which would mean that caste discrimination is recognised as a form of race discrimination in the same way as discrimination based on colour, ethnic or national origin, and nationality. It is time for the Government to introduce the recommended secondary legislation to make caste an aspect of race—contrary to what the hon. Member for Romford said, I believe that the Equality Act should be expanded.

We need to make caste discrimination illegal when it comes to employment and public services, including education. The provision is already in section 9(5)(a) of the Equality Act, but it needs to be implemented. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response so that I can reassure my constituents in Wolverhampton West that we are doing something for them, as they have suffered from caste-based discrimination.

Since 2013, numerous caste-based discrimination cases have been pursued in employment tribunals, and there have been other cases in which caste discrimination has been alleged—for example, in the NHS and, in one case, in a bakery—but the employers decided to settle out of court. The courts should not have to rely on case law to address caste-based discrimination, because that leaves the issue inconsistent and uncertain.

I ask that the Government take initiative now, further to section 9(5)(a) of the Equality Act, to provide clarity to our courts. They should implement a clear structure of redress for those impacted and stand alongside other countries, businesses and trade unions in confronting caste-based discrimination, so that we send a clear message to everyone in this country that hatred and discrimination in any form have no place in Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Surrey county councillor.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing today’s debate. For all the reasons that he so ably laid out, it is now well overdue that we honestly assess the impact of the Equality Act on people in the workplace and wider society and consider whether there is need for change. It is best practice to always reassess and measure outcomes, rather than assuming that something is working as intended.

I wish to focus on the public sector equality duty in the Act and on its broader impact on our public institutions. It was undoubtedly a well-meaning clause. However, as is often the case, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The public sector equality duty in section 149 imposes a legal burden on public bodies to

“have due regard to the need to…eliminate discrimination…advance equality of opportunity…and…foster good relations”

between people with different protected characteristics. That all sounds rather wonderful, but the reality is that it has become a powerful, often unaccountable force that we see distorting public priorities and fuelling ideological dogma. We see local councils that are more concerned with ensuring that residents are anti-racist than with ensuring that bus services to schools and colleges are adequate. We see them painting rainbows on our roads rather than fixing them, and speaking warm words about the importance of accessibility for disabled people while failing to cut hedges back or adjust bus stops.

We all undoubtedly support the ambition that everyone—no matter their protected, or indeed unprotected, characteristics—be given the same opportunities, be treated fairly and have the chance to thrive and prosper through hard work and talent. However, looking at the impact that the public sector duty has had, I believe that it was a mistake to think that that was the answer. If anything, it has highlighted difference, undermined meritocracy and, in some cases, pitted groups against each other. It is now often helpful to someone’s career or studies to be oppressed in some shape or form, leading to the absurd situation in which some of the most talented people are blocked. That does no one any favours, and certainly not our country.

EDI, or DEI as some people call it, has become a lucrative industry. Every public body, from local district councils and hospitals to police forces and schools, is now required to evidence, audit, review and revise policies in the light of how they impact protected groups, regardless of the outcomes that those policies deliver. A 2022 Policy Exchange report found that major public institutions are spending tens of millions of pounds annually on equality, diversity and inclusion roles, as well as training and compliance measures, all to ensure that they tick the right boxes against the public sector equality duty.

The issue is not just the cost. What makes the public sector equality duty potentially damaging is the way in which it enables particular ideologies to seep into institutions and spaces that ought to be wholly neutral on such issues. Because the duty is so broadly framed, and because it requires anticipatory rather than reactive compliance, it has given rise to a culture of pre-emptive overreach. Public bodies feel compelled to insert themselves into questions of speech, behaviour and belief that ought to lie outside their remit. More and more, we see a move away from facts and evidence towards fashionable beliefs within institutions that should be impartial. We see that in councils demanding that their staff include pronouns in their signatures, in police forces being trained to detect unconscious bias, and even in the Welsh Government, where they have pledged to make the country anti-racist.

There is nothing neutral or impartial about such choices. They reflect specific world views, and by embedding them in policy and practice, the public sector equality duty is demanding adherence to such ideas as a precondition for working in the public sector or using its services. That cannot be right. It is little wonder that public confidence has been eroded. More in Common’s “Shattered Britain” report tells of swathes of the public who now view public institutions with mistrust, partly because within such institutions a narrow set of values now dominates, and any dissent is smacked down as bigotry or even dismissed as far-right.

Like all Members present, no doubt, I have heard accounts from my constituents of what that looks like in practice. I have heard from people who feel baffled and confused by all the focus on diversity, unconscious bias and pronouns, rather than on things that actually affect their day-to-day life in a meaningful way, such as fly-tipping and potholes.

My central point is that the public sector equality duty does not just waste taxpayer money; it actively distorts how services are delivered and allows ideology to permeate them. We have seen NHS trusts wasting fortunes on a parade of diversity-focused roles. In the case of NHS Fife, the bureaucratic machinery was brought to bear against a nurse for objecting to a biological man entering her changing room. Meanwhile, West Yorkshire police felt that it would be a valid use of £4.5 million to send their entire workforce away to be lectured for two days on the slave trade. We can only wonder if that time would have been better spent trying to solve some crimes.

I am of the view that we should reconsider whether the public sector equality duty is fit for purpose, and whether a return to a model under which equality means equal treatment for all would have better outcomes.

[Warinder Juss]

I accept that we should not have tick-box exercises, but does the hon. Member not agree that legislation should reflect changing social values? Were it not for the fact that we have equality legislation, we might still be suffering the social ills that we suffered back in the ’60s and ’70s, which I remember from growing up in Wolverhampton. We have moved on. Does the hon. Member not agree that that is partly because of the legislation that has been passed to highlight to people what is and is not acceptable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this debate. This issue is having a fundamental impact on our society but is not discussed enough. I associate myself with his remarks about Don’t Divide Us and its excellent report, which I urge everybody to read.

We are not a country that divides ourselves into tribe, clan or creed. We do not believe that one sex is more intelligent or more modest than the other. We do not persecute people for their religion or sexuality. At our heart, we are a country built on Christian and enlightenment values and common law. The desire for reason and the belief that we should want for our neighbour what we want for ourselves and that we should be equal before the law have steered us towards being a more meritocratic society than almost any other in the world.

I believe in making sure that opportunity can reach people no matter their background, class or circumstances, and I do think that we have some way to go in that regard. However, deep in our national psyche, we believe in judging someone by their character and not by their characteristics.

There is a proud legacy of laws passed by Parliament that shows this tendency of ours to protect the few from discrimination or harassment by the many. As many Members have said, the Equality Act 2010 brought together many existing laws on discrimination, including rights for pregnant women and disabled people. Those were certainly important pieces of legislation, but they serve as a reminder that just as human rights were not created by the Human Rights Act in 1998, equality was not created by the Equality Act in 2010.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), talked about being evidence-based; the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights conducted a review of the public sector equality duty in Scotland and found that

“there was virtually no robust evidence of positive change in the lives of people with protected characteristics”.

We should not fall into the trap of treating this piece of legislation as flawless or beyond scrutiny just because it speaks to values that we hold dear.

The Equality Act did not just bring together discrimination and harassment laws, but went much further. It imposed a legal duty on public bodies and private institutions to promote equality based on nine specific characteristics. In turn, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford pointed out, that has created an industry that wants to force a statistically perfect division on the basis of sex and race in all parts of society, even though that is impossible to achieve. It encourages us to presume that every disparity is a result of prejudice and to turn even minor workplace differences into legal grievances. Worst of all, unelected officials in our institutions have worked behind closed doors with radical activists, who prescribe social engineering to get equal outcomes, even when it takes a hammer to the British people’s sense of fairness and is against the law.

In seeking to progress equality, these aspects of the Act have changed our culture and taken us backwards. We do not believe that people should be held back from progression because of their protected characteristics, but in the RAF, white male recruits were deliberately blocked from training and given fewer opportunities because of their race and sex. We do not believe that women should be paid less than men for the same work, but in the Department for Education, they are using the Equality Act to justify paying men a thousand pounds more than women for the same jobs in childcare.

We do not believe in employing people just because of their race, but senior officers at West Yorkshire police rigged the recruitment process to hire an ethnic minority candidate, who had failed their interview, just to meet a diversity target. Thanks to the Labour Government, a young person’s opportunity to take their first steps serving this country in the civil service is based not on how hard they work but on what job their parents did when their child was 14 years old. If you are the child of a nurse, cabbie or shopkeeper, I am sorry, but you are just not working class enough—the door is shut to you. In internships up and down the country, including at MI6, young white people have been told they cannot even apply.

Here is the problem: the Equality Act has created a hierarchy of diversity. Women are told that their rights are not as important as trans rights. If a white boy grew up in care, had parents were alcoholics or had recovered from a life-changing disease, tough luck—he is not as deserving as an ethnic minority. Who is to say whose adversity has been more of a challenge? How can we fit the whole of human experience into these tidy little boxes? When rights clash, as they do, who gets to choose which group is deemed more worthy? When it came to gender ideology, it was bureaucrats behind closed doors, often working hand in glove with extreme activist groups. When women lost their jobs or were forced to share changing rooms with men, it was HR departments citing the Equality Act who held the pitchforks. Across the NHS, police forces, local councils and Government Departments, it was unelected officials who were using the Equality Act as a weapon to undermine meritocracy.

In the cases of Birmingham and Next, it was unaccountable, independent experts who decided that manual shift work was equal to retail and office work. In the case of Next, when employees were given the chance, they refused to move to warehouses. The work was deemed of equal value, even when it was clearly not thought to be so by the workers themselves. That is simply absurd. One ruling bankrupted a council, and the other will push up costs for consumers, all because of decisions made by people who are unaccountable. More such cases are on the way.

This hierarchy of diversity does not reflect the values upon which this country was built: fairness and merit, judging individuals by their actions and their character, not by their immutable characteristics. We cannot assign innocence or guilt, merit or privilege, by characteristic, placing some groups on a pedestal while others are pushed aside. The public see a society where protection is selective, and where the playing field tilts towards those who can claim special status. We heard today calls from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) to have yet more special statuses, but surely, the answer is this: the law that protects me from discrimination should protect my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and his constituents from discrimination, when we are all equal before the law.

It is about to get worse, because the Government are set on introducing an Islamophobia definition, which they have tried to do behind closed doors. That will have a chilling effect on the ability of our public services to grasp difficult and sensitive issues, such as grooming gangs, gender inequality or Islamist extremism. They are doing this under the pretence of combating hatred and violence, which are already against the law.

Instead of doing the hard graft of breaking down barriers and creating opportunity, Ministers want to hand yet more powers to consultants and HR officials in a undefined race and equality Bill to further shape the world according to who they deem worthy. It is easier, after all, to talk about quotas at diversity conferences than it is to fix entrenched problems in education, geography, family structures and culture. Because it is easier to judge physical characteristics, it risks creating a system that overlooks each individual’s personal circumstances and what they may have overcome.

Giving pen pushers more authority to dictate who is privileged does not create more opportunity or make Britain more fair or prosperous, so we should ask: what message does this send to our children? Do we want them to believe that their future is determined by tick boxes on a form? Do we want them to grow up thinking that fairness means that some doors are closed to them because of their race or sex, or do we want them to live in a country where the law guarantees equal treatment and opportunity for all?

It is time to put an end to the social experiment and return to first principles: equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity in life and the belief that the people of this country can rise as far as their talent and determination can take them. That is what genuine equality looks like, and that is what the British people believe in.

[Warinder Juss]

I take the right hon. Lady’s point about everyone being equal under the law, but what happens if somebody is not made equal under the law? What redress would that person have, were it not for legislation that is currently in place?

[Claire Coutinho]

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is talking about discrimination. The point of being equal under the law is that the same protections from discrimination can protect his constituents, the hon. Member for Romford and me. The whole point of our common-law system is that we must all face the same law, whether that is for penalty or in the case of discrimination and harassment. He refers to many of the examples of discrimination and harassment that are in the Equality Act, but they were not created by that Act; they were created decades and decades earlier.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

The humanitarian crisis that we are continuing to see in Gaza is appalling, horrific and unforgivable, and continues to worsen day by day. Since January, there have been 44,000 admissions of children for the treatment of acute malnutrition. We all know that the World Health Organisation, along with the UN, UNICEF and others, recently confirmed that Gaza is facing a man-made famine, with over half a million people affected.

I have often said, as have others, that Netanyahu will only listen to the voice of President Trump and the United States. As President Trump has criticised Netanyahu’s attack on Qatar, I ask the Government: is this not the perfect time to put further pressure on the United States to get an immediate ceasefire that includes full and proper humanitarian aid going into Gaza, facilitating the return of all hostages, and recognising the Palestinian state?

I am pleased that the Government have continued to condemn Israeli settlements and that they recognise that those settlements are illegal under international law. I am also pleased that they are committed to recognising Palestine as a state, but we cannot just sit back and say that we have done all that we can while the unimaginable suffering in Gaza and the occupied territories continues and worsens.

Middle East

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I think I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, and that is what we are attempting to do.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Instead of taking substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and agreeing to an immediate ceasefire and long-term sustainable peace, the Israeli Government have ignored us. They have failed to let aid go through, and created a man-made famine. It appears to me that the Israeli Government will only listen to Donald Trump and the United States, so can the Foreign Secretary please confirm what discussions he has had with Donald Trump to take action against the Israeli Government?

[Mr Lammy]

As I have said, I have spoken to Secretary of State Rubio, Envoy Steve Witkoff and Vice-President Vance about these issues. I leave discussions with the President of the United States to our great Prime Minister.

West Bank: Forced Displacement

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Rhodes]

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.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

On my hon. Friend’s point, what is happening in the west bank has legally been defined as a war crime by the International Criminal Court. As a supporter of the rule of law, should the UK not therefore condemn these actions as horrific war crimes committed by the Israeli Government, and encourage the wider international community to do the same?

[Martin Rhodes]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing the debate, particularly as it provides an opportunity to give a slightly more detailed commentary on the circumstances in the west bank. I recognise the many contributions from hon. Members. I hope that they will forgive me if I start and make some progress on the west bank specifically. I am then happy to come back to some broader points.

In that spirit, I will answer the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), on consular assistance before making further headway. The flight from Israel on Sunday is expected to be our last. It was not full. We believe that we have assisted all those seeking our help in Israel. There are obviously different circumstances in Iran, where there are British nationals also affected by developments in the region. We hope to see airspace open up in Iran, but for reasons that all hon. Members would appreciate, the extent of consular assistance available there is quite different from that in Israel. However, those in either Iran or Israel should not hesitate to continue to be in touch with the Foreign Office if further things are required.

I am happy to provide some commentary on Gaza and East Jerusalem as I go, but I really want to talk about the west bank. Alongside Gaza and East Jerusalem, it is a core component of any future Palestinian state. It is a key component of any two-state solution, and it is in the light of that that we should consider developments, some of which have been referenced by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North referenced the 22 further planned settlements that the Israeli Government have announced. It is worth dwelling briefly on the extent of expansion of settler outposts. Between 1996 and 2023, an average of seven new outposts were established in any given year. In 2024, that went up to 59. There is a step change in the degree of settlement, as has been described by many. There are plans for over 19,000 more housing units and counting. That is an all-time record in 2025.

That is territory that must form the heart of a sovereign, viable and free Palestine. Violence in those territories is rife. We welcomed that Prime Minister Netanyahu condemned settler attacks on Friday. Those were settler attacks conducted against the IDF. The Israeli Government need to do much more to clamp down on violence and hold perpetrators to account; not only when IDF soldiers are attacked, but when Palestinians are.

Many of my hon. Friends and colleagues have described the difficulty of bringing to life the horror of what is happening to many in the west bank. I have received reports recently of one child shot by Israeli security forces 11 times. What need could there be for one bullet, let alone 11, to stop a child from throwing stones? It is a monstrously disproportionate use of force, and one that I know the whole House will join me in condemning in the strongest possible terms. Given those developments, I remain seriously concerned by Israel’s Operation Iron Wall, which has targeted Palestinian militants in the west bank and has been running for over 150 days. Any operations must be proportionate to the threat posed. The House will understand my hesitation on those points, given the story that I have just relayed.

Palestinians must be allowed home. Civilians must be protected and the destruction of civilian infrastructure must be minimised. Our position remains consistent: I have condemned it, the Foreign Secretary has condemned it, and the Prime Minister has condemned it. Israeli settlements are not just unhelpful; they are illegal under international law and harm prospects for a two-state solution. In all our engagements with Israeli Ministers we continue to call for a halt to expansion. We have taken action to hold violence to account, including three rounds of sanctions. They are sanctions against individuals, outposts and organisations that have supported and incited devastating and deadly violence, including through extremist rhetoric. On 10 June I announced measures against extremist Israeli Government Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in their personal capacity for those very reasons.

[Warinder Juss]

Does the Minister agree that the UK Government recognising a sovereign state of Palestine now would add more weight to the pressure we are trying to exert on Israel?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend asks an important question, which has been discussed much in the House. The questions of recognition are vexed. We want to do it; we want to make a contribution to improving the lives of the Palestinian people. In the short period I have been Minister, circumstances in the west bank have been particularly susceptible to decisions by the Israeli Government. I will come on to those shortly. It is those consequences that we must weigh in the timing and the manner of our decision making.

As the situation in the west bank continues to deteriorate, we remain alive to the dreadful impact on Palestinians being forced to flee their homes. Many colleagues have spoken of some of the residential areas. In Jenin, Tulkarm and other northern towns, 40,000 people have been displaced by Israeli military operations. In East Jerusalem and area C, 800 structures have been demolished, displacing 960 Palestinians. Entire neighbourhoods have been reshaped, with the destruction of people’s homes, for which there can be no justification. The Israeli Government have said that the demolitions were because residents did not have building permits. Permits are near impossible for Palestinians to obtain.

As we speak, thousands more Palestinians and their communities face the prospect of demolitions and evictions. That includes more than 1,000 people in Masafer Yatta alone, which many hon. Members have referred to, hundreds in East Jerusalem, and 84 schools in the west bank, including East Jerusalem. That threatens the education of thousands of children determined to keep learning in spite of facing unfathomable trauma. Even schools funded by the UK have been demolished. That may be under the mistaken assumption that that sort of intimidation will do anything other than strengthen our resolve to help those who bear the brunt of it on a daily basis.

My officials in Jerusalem will continue to meet communities at risk of demolition and displacement, including communities of Masafer Yatta. We will continue to provide practical support to Palestinians and Bedouin communities facing demolitions and evictions to increase residents’ resilience and access to legal aid programmes, so that residents can stay on their land. In all but the most exceptional cases, it is clear that demolitions by an occupying power are contrary to international law. We are urging the Israeli Government to halt demolitions and evictions of Palestinian communities as a priority.

There are, sadly, many other factors undermining security in the west bank. Not least of those is the ongoing damage to the Palestinian economy. The economy of the west bank contracted by 21.7% last year, while that of Gaza contracted by 79.7%. All the while, closures across the west bank have prevented the free movement of Palestinian people and goods. Restrictions on access to Israel have left hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of work. As of the end of 2024, unemployment reached 29% in the west bank.

Israel has not transferred Palestinian tax clearance revenues to the Palestinian Authority since May. Officials and security forces have been paid only a fraction of their salaries. Taken together, those pressures threaten the viability of the Palestinian Authority, and risk overall collapse of the Palestinian economy, as well as the stability of the west bank. We are calling now on Israel to release clearance revenues to the Palestinian Authority immediately.

We value deeply our continued friendship with the Palestinian Authority. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referenced the landmark memorandum of understanding that the Foreign Secretary signed with Prime Minister Mustafa, when our Prime Minister welcomed him to the UK earlier this year. An effective Palestinian Authority has a vital role to play in achieving a lasting peace and progress towards a two-state solution. That is why we will continue to work with them on their vital reform agenda. Many hon. Members set out some of the challenges facing the Palestinian Authority. We will continue, through the work of the special envoy for Palestinian Authority governance, Sir Michael Barber, to support them in their vital efforts.

This year, we have pledged £101 million of additional support to the Palestinian people. That is both for humanitarian aid and for support with economic development. We will continue to work to strengthen and reform the Palestinian Authority; they are the vital alternative to Hamas, who must have no role in Palestinian governance.

We remain committed to supporting the Palestinian people. The situation we face is not only an affront to the rights of Palestinians but runs counter to Israel’s long-term security and democracy, as many colleagues have pointed out this afternoon. It is an assault on the fundamentals of a two-state solution. That is the only viable framework available for a just and lasting peace. It is supported on every side of this House.

Political Prisoners

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), sitting on my right, who is Jagtar Singh Johal’s MP. It is about Jagtar that I will speak this afternoon.

Jagtar Singh Johal is a Sikh, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Although Jagtar is not one of my constituents, I represent the Wolverhampton West constituency, which has a large and engaged Sikh population. Not only the Sikh population but non-Sikh constituents have expressed deep concern about Jagtar’s treatment and have consistently urged me to encourage the UK Government to take meaningful action. The allegations of torture, the length of detention without trial and the lack of due process in Jagtar’s case amount to a serious and unacceptable breach of international human rights. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has concluded that his detention is arbitrary and in violation of international law.

On 6 November 2024, during Prime Minister’s questions, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire mentioned that Jagtar’s imprisonment had reached its seventh year. The Prime Minister replied:

“We are committed to pushing the Government of India on this important case. The Foreign Secretary has raised it and will continue to do so”.—[Official Report, 6 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 302.]

I would like to know what developments have taken place since then.

In March this year, the Punjab district court found that there was no credible evidence for the terrorism and conspiracy charge brought against Mr Johal, and that he was not a member of a terrorist gang. However, he still faces eight charges, which are based on the same alleged confession and evidence on which his acquittal took place. He faces the death penalty. Jagtar has never been convicted of a crime, yet is in solitary confinement 24/7 and subject to surveillance.

Following the acquittal on the charges mentioned earlier, we now have a window of opportunity to secure Jagtar’s release and bring him home to his country and family. We must use all the diplomatic channels available to us to press for Jagtar’s release; the situation cannot be allowed to continue. As we often say, justice delayed is justice denied. Like others mentioned this afternoon, Jagtar Singh Johal has waited for far too long.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and his courtesy in this House. I can reaffirm that this Government support the existence of the state of Israel, and we will continue to stand on its defence when required.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and hard work, and I believe he is genuinely concerned about what is happening in Gaza. We all want a two-state solution, a safe and secure Israel, and a sovereign state of Palestine, and we have already said that the illegal settlements of Israel are something that we condemn. We recognise the state of Israel. Can the Minister please give an explanation as to why we cannot now recognise the state of Palestine?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and his important question. He knows our commitments to a Palestinian state as set out in our manifesto, and I will not rehearse them. It is our job as the British Government to create the conditions in which a Palestinian state can be viable and sovereign and can live in safety alongside a safe and secure Israel. It is to that task that we continue to put our efforts.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

On Second Reading, I voted in favour of the Bill, partly because I believed in the principle of it—I believe the right to choice, and in the right not to choose—and partly because I believed that we needed to have a way of checking somebody’s clear intention. At the moment, horrible deaths are happening and there are no such checks in place, so I was keen to see how this House could come up with a system that, although it would not be perfect, would be better than the terrible status quo we have now.

At that stage, we had two checks by medical practitioners, and then a third layer: the involvement of a High Court judge. Although I was pleased with a third layer, I was not convinced that it was the right way to deal with the matter. I am therefore pleased that that the Bill Committee proposed a panel of experts to make those checks, and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) has rightly addressed some of those points.

For me, having that panel in place is very important, and it is our job to see how we can strengthen it, so I want to speak to amendments 78 and 79. Amendment 78 would improve this provision by ensuring that there is a unanimous decision in favour of a certificate of eligibility—abstentions would not apply. That is better than what was previously drafted and is certainly better than a High Court judge. Amendment 79 would require those reasons to be set out in writing. There will be scrutiny of those decisions and we do need to have the reasons properly set out.

I appreciate that all hon. Members in the Chamber, and all those who have taken part in this process, have approached it with the best of intentions. It is not easy—it is difficult—and we have constituents giving us examples from both sides. We are doing the best we can to alleviate people’s suffering—that, I hope, is our common intention across the House.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend, I found the decision to vote for the Bill on Second Reading a difficult choice, as it was for many, but it was to improve the current situation and to have dignity in dying. Does he agree that we should not impose on the Bill significant restrictions that would render it ineffective if passed?

[Kevin Bonavia]

My hon. Friend is right to think about the impact of restrictions. Today we are all trying, in our different ways, to improve the Bill, whether we believe in it in principle or not. I believe that the amendments to which I am speaking would improve the Bill.

As we all think carefully about the different parts of the Bill, we should ask ourselves this question: would it make things better than the status quo? I believe that it would. I believe that there would be fewer horrible, painful deaths. The amendments help in that direction. I remain a supporter of the Bill, and ask other hon. Members to think carefully too.

Gaza: UK Assessment

Warinder Juss Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the hostages. Some of the released hostages have made this argument with the greatest force, and they are important words. Let me say concretely and clearly that the British Government oppose the return to war in Gaza by the Israeli Government; we oppose the most recent escalation.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I am sure that I am not the only Member of this House who is getting increasingly frustrated by the number of discussions that we have where we say the same things over and over again while the horrific situation for the Palestinian people in Gaza worsens day by day. Does the Minister agree that for us to send a clear message to Israel, we need to do three things: suspend all arms licences to Israel, including the F-35 licences; impose sanctions against Israel; and recognise the state of Palestine?

[Mr Falconer]

The House has heard me speak of my frustration on a number of occasions—I share that with my hon. Friend. I think I have addressed the three substantive points that he raises already in this session.