�* the the government, led by the conservatives, which is to essentially give israel and say it has a right to self defend and essentially have supported israel's monetary actions of course, urging restraint but in the hope that hamas would be defeated on the hostages released. right from the start, many labour party activists, including mps and some supporters, have been very keen that right from the start, there should be an immediate ceasefire. they have never supported israel's military action and that is what has created tension for sir keir starmer. he has now moved his position, as has the government somewhat. the political landscape has changed here in the uk but there is still some in his own party, either mps, activists or supporters in the country who just want labour party to take as tough line as they would as the scottish national

party. understand the second motion of the order people will not be moved today — order people will not be moved today. this is a highly sensitive subiect— today. this is a highly sensitive subject in— today. this is a highly sensitive subject in which feelings are running _ subject in which feelings are running high and the house and the nation _ running high and the house and the nation and — running high and the house and the nation and throughout the world. i think_ nation and throughout the world. i think it's _ nation and throughout the world. i think it's important on this occasion_ think it's important on this occasion that the house is able to consider— occasion that the house is able to consider the widest possible range of options. i have therefore decided to select _ of options. i have therefore decided to select their members both in the name _ to select their members both in the name of— to select their members both in the name of the prime minister and in the name — name of the prime minister and in the name of the leader of the opposition. because the operation of standing _ opposition. because the operation of standing order 31 will prevent another— standing order 31 will prevent another amendment from being moved after the _ another amendment from being moved after the government has moved its amendment. i will exceptionally call the opposition front bench spokesperson to remove their amendment to the beginning of the debate _ amendment to the beginning of the debate once the snp spokesperson has moved _ debate once the snp spokesperson has moved the _ debate once the snp spokesperson has moved the motion, at the end of the

debate, _ moved the motion, at the end of the debate, the — moved the motion, at the end of the debate, the house will have an opportunity to take a decision on the official opposition amendment. there _ the official opposition amendment. there is— the official opposition amendment. there is a _ the official opposition amendment. there is a final question. if the officiai— there is a final question. if the official opposition amendment is not agreed _ official opposition amendment is not agreed to, _ official opposition amendment is not agreed to, i will call the minister to the _ agreed to, i will call the minister to the government amendment. that will engage... order! that will engage — will engage... order! that will engage the provisions of standing order— engage the provisions of standing order 31 _ engage the provisions of standing order 31 so that the next vote will be on _ order 31 so that the next vote will be on the — order 31 so that the next vote will be on the original words of the snp motion _ be on the original words of the snp motion and — be on the original words of the snp motion and that is not agreed to come _ motion and that is not agreed to come within the house will have the opportunity to vote on the government amendment. proceeding this way— government amendment. proceeding this way will allow a vote to take place _ just explain what the speaker said and what it means? the

just explain what the speaker said and what it means?— just explain what the speaker said and what it means? the speaker has essentially just _ and what it means? the speaker has essentially just done _ and what it means? the speaker has essentiallyjust done an _ and what it means? the speaker has essentiallyjust done an absolute - essentiallyjust done an absolute massive political favour to sir keir starmer and the main opposition labour party. why? because as we were chatting before the speaker perfectly sensibly interrupted, what the labour leadership were worried about is that a number of its mps might rebel, as it were, against the labour party leadership and support the scottish national party's call for an immediate ceasefire, if it was a choice between that and just the government, but of course the speaker has come to labour's aid by saying, look, parliament has got a chance and the mps will get a chance to vote on all three motions, the scottish national party won, the labour party won on the governing conservative party won, so in terms of the domestic political issue, the problem that keir starmer was worried that he would face a rebellion amongst his own mps voting for the scottish national party, that seems to have gone away, so

what we will now get over the next few hours is a debate which i think we'll show you the broad spectrum of views amongst uk politicians from those who think that israel should carry on until hamas are defeated, to those who think the most important thing is that the fighting should stop absolutely instantly without conditions. haifa should stop absolutely instantly without conditions.— should stop absolutely instantly without conditions. how do you think that debate will _ without conditions. how do you think that debate will shape _ without conditions. how do you think that debate will shape up? _ without conditions. how do you think that debate will shape up? in - without conditions. how do you think that debate will shape up? in terms | that debate will shape up? in terms of people voting for their party's motion question marketing more in terms of the latter, that is what sir keir starmer and the opposition labour party will want, that discipline issue to have gone away and that the scottish national party mps will vote for their motion. timer;r mps will vote for their motion. they will be sunported — mps will vote for their motion. they will be supported by _ mps will vote for their motion. tie: will be supported by some other parliamentary groupings. labour mps will vote for the labour motion and governing conservative mps will vote for the motion likely to win, the one calling for an immediate

humanitarian pause, but not a ceasefire. humanitarian pause, but not a ceasefire-— humanitarian pause, but not a ceasefire. ~ ., , ., ., ceasefire. we are 'ust going to turn back to the _ ceasefire. we are just going to turn back to the house _ ceasefire. we are just going to turn back to the house of _ ceasefire. we are just going to turn back to the house of commons - ceasefire. we are just going to turn back to the house of commons and listening on that debate over the motion. point of order. i appreciate what ou have point of order. i appreciate what you have outlined _ point of order. i appreciate what you have outlined here - point of order. i appreciate what you have outlined here but - point of order. i appreciate what you have outlined here but i - point of order. i appreciate what | you have outlined here but i seek your advice because i have taken advice from the clerks and this is the snp�*s opposition day and the purpose of an opposition day is for our party to have the ability to put forward our business. we have had a significant delay to the start of this motion which is significant to the extent we dropped a second motion and now we are completely appeared to be doing things in a way that has never been done before. can i ask for your device of what the point of an opposition day is if it will be done like this?

cani can ijust can i just say, can ijust say, you may want to vote at some — can ijust say, you may want to vote at some point. a point of order has been _ at some point. a point of order has been raised — at some point. a point of order has been raised by the snp chief whip. as i been raised by the snp chief whip. as i say, _ been raised by the snp chief whip. as i say, i— been raised by the snp chief whip. as i say, i have made a judgment on a president— as i say, i have made a judgment on a president that has been done before, — a president that has been done before, i— a president that has been done before, i have viewed it —— not precedentm _ before, i have viewed it —— not precedent... i am going to stand by the ruling _ precedent... i am going to stand by the ruling and i will not take... brand — the ruling and i will not take... brand o'hara. —— brendan o'hara. speak _

mr speaker, i beg to move the snp motion has been tabled in my name and those on my right honourable friend's and those on my right honourable friends which calls for an immediate ceasefire in gaza from all combatants. i wish to put on record once again the unequivocal condemnation of the attack in october the 7th and repeat what our call for the immediate release of all hostages and to see those involved in those atrocities called to account for their actions. the war in gaza is one of the great defining moments of our time, yet until today this house has not been given the opportunity to debate both the unfolding catastrophe and the wider implications for regional and global stability. wider implications for regional and globalstability. nor wider implications for regional and global stability. nor have we had the opportunity to debate the urgent

and pressing need for an immediate first step to finding a lasting and just peace. no one would deny that israel has a right to defend itself. every country has the right. what no country has a right to do, however, is to lay siege to a civilian population, carpet bomb densely inhabited areas move people from their homes, erase an entire civilian infrastructure and impose a collective punishment involving the cutting off of water, electricity, food and medicine from civilians. and no country, regardless of who they are, in the name of self—defence, can kill civilians at such a pace and in such a scale that injust16 weeks almost such a pace and in such a scale that in just 16 weeks almost 30,000 are known to have died with a further

80,000 injured. mr speaker, we cannot allow the core principle of self defence to be so ruthlessly exploited and manipulated in order to legitimise the slaughter of innocent civilians. if we do that, then what hope is there for the future of international role —based order? an order created to protect people from atrocities, not to be used as a smoke screen to hide the execution. if we accept what israel is doing in gaza as the new norm, as the new accepted standard of self—defence, then we undermine that core principle which is meant to protect and defend us and therefore we cannot accept that what is happening now is self—defence, not just because of the precedent it will send. and i have no doubt that that thought contributed to the

united states issuing its clearest warning yet to netanyahu that they would not support his proposed ground offensive in rafah and this is why the un security council are currently debating a ceasefire and as we speak, even the us have recognised that a ceasefire must happen for a peaceful political solution. it does not go far enough but it does show that things are moving and opinions are changing and the guarantees israel has come to rely on are gradually withdrawing. thank you, mr speaker. there are very few people, not only in this house, but in this country at the moment who would differ from the sentiments being expressed by the

scottish national party's spokesperson here today. we all watched with horror each night the torture in gaza and we remember every morning pain being felt by the families whose loved ones are being held hostage. but with the honourable member not agree with me that we would serve their cause so much better and ourselves in this place if we built a consensus behind an opinion today, rather than indulging in petty party politics which serves no one? i indulging in petty party politics which serves no one?— indulging in petty party politics which serves no one? i think the honourable _ which serves no one? i think the honourable lady. _ which serves no one? i think the honourable lady. i'm _ which serves no one? i think the honourable lady. i'm not- which serves no one? i think the honourable lady. i'm not sure i which serves no one? i think the i honourable lady. i'm not sure what she means about petty party politics and the behaviour we are seeing today has been pretty petty but we are all about consensus. anything

that can build a consensus for peace which has to be based around peace, justice and an immediate ceasefire, then we will be there. i will justice and an immediate ceasefire, then we will be there.— then we will be there. i will give wa . i'm then we will be there. i will give way. i'm grateful— then we will be there. i will give way. i'm grateful for _ then we will be there. i will give way. i'm grateful for the - then we will be there. i will give way. i'm grateful for the urban i way. i'm gratefulfor the urban and forgiving way and if i could just highlight something that is more important than some of the conversations we have had. a statement was released saying that un experts had uncovered israeli forces in gaza and the west bank at that are being accused of egregious human rights abuses including arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings and a sexual violence including sexual attacks. does the honourable member agree with me that this government should be pushing hard for a proper investigation for people to be held to account for these gross human rights abuses? absolutely agree with my right

honourable friend. i think it's vitally important that whether it's a perceived ally or a perceived full, egregious breaches of human rights is a green aegis breach of human rights and should be taken as that —— egregious breach... and should be taken without fear of on favour. t should be taken without fear of on favour. . . should be taken without fear of on favour. ., ., ., favour. i am grateful. one of the thins favour. i am grateful. one of the things that _ favour. i am grateful. one of the things that has _ favour. i am grateful. one of the things that has defined - favour. i am grateful. one of the things that has defined this - favour. i am grateful. one of thel things that has defined this house over the last couple of years has been the unity over ukraine and it's been the unity over ukraine and it's been really important that we have all stood together on all sides against vladimir putin. can i appeal to my honourable friend that those that are facing famine and death in gaza and it's important that all of us across this house show the appropriate leadership to come together to speak up against the human rights abuses are taking place and will be tied any of us that failed to show that particular leadership. now is the time and todayis leadership. now is the time and today is the time for this house to come together and stand up for those

in palestine need our support. i in palestine need our support. i do auree in palestine need our support. i do agree with — in palestine need our support. i do agree with my _ in palestine need our support. i do agree with my honourable friend and i think we all have a part to play in bringing peace and saving innocent lives, so i was somewhat surprised to hear that foreign secretary on sunday when he seemed to dismiss and downplay the importance of this debate when he said on the radio it's not this vote that will bring about a ceasefire. and of course, he is right, voting for an immediate ceasefire today will not by itself bring about the end of the slaughter, but the impact, the impact on the optics of this parliament, hitherto one of israel's staunchest allies are saying enough is enough and calling for an immediate ceasefire would be enormous. and while in and of itself

able to bring about a ceasefire, support for this motion would further remove that ever thinning the veil of legitimacy that the uk's continued support gives to israel merciless war in gaza and it would show the beleaguered and battered people of palestine that we do care and that we have not forgotten them. and calling for an immediate ceasefire would also be a pivotal moment in the campaign to stop uk arms sales to israel because if a south african foreign minister said last week that the decision to stop the fighting in gaza is in the hands of the countries that supply israel with their weapons. and who knows, it might actually help some of the uk's political establishment and those seeking to aspire to the position to locate their moral compass.

he refers