Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) for securing the debate. As she alluded to, we have had many exchanges on events in Israel and Palestine.
Let me start by setting out a little of the legal position in relation to the 1948 convention on genocide. The convention was clearly born out of the horrors of the second world war. It was a solemn commitment by the international community to say, “Never again.” Today, upholding the convention is of paramount importance to the Government. I thank the hon. Member for her thoughtful contribution on the issue.
Complying with international law is a fundamental part of the Government’s commitment to the rule of law. I can confirm that we continue to treat all our international legal and humanitarian obligations seriously. That is what our assessments are focused on, and we abide by all of them, including those under the genocide convention.
Mr Falconer
I will make a little progress, and then of course I will.
More than 75 years after it was created, we remain fully committed to the responsibilities set out in the genocide convention. As the hon. Member knows, the long-standing policy of the UK Government is that any formal determination as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent national or international court, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies. That allows a decision to be made in the light of all available evidence, in the context of a credible judicial process.
The hon. Member asked repeatedly for a risk assessment of genocide. There is a difference between the lower bar of the serious risks that we determined in the September assessments and the higher bar. I recognise that she would prefer different answers, but as a Minister I must attend to the legal questions on me, which are at the lower bar. I will not speculate about legal determinations beyond that. I have confirmed repeatedly, to her and to the whole House, that the Government understand our legal obligation under the genocide convention and we have met it. We have set out the assessments that we have made and we continue to keep them under review.
Ellie Chowns
The Minister is relying on arguments that, as I have articulated, do not answer my question. He says that the Government take their responsibilities under international law seriously, including the responsibility under article I of the genocide convention to prevent genocide. Does he recognise that we cannot wait for a court to determine that genocide has occurred if we are to prevent that genocide? We have to act before that. Does he recognise that by repeatedly relying on the assessments relating to export licences and IHL, he is not addressing the question? Has a risk assessment of genocide in Gaza been conducted by the Government? It should be, if we are to fulfil our obligations under international law.
Mr Falconer
I understand that the hon. Member does not like the answers that she has been provided with, but they have remained consistent, because our position is consistent. I can assure her that, armed with the full legal advice of the Government, I am confident that the Government are complying with the genocide convention. She raises the very—
Mr Falconer
I will not give way again.
The hon. Member’s question—“Surely, we must not wait for a formal determination?”—is incredibly important. I want to reassure hon. Members that we do not wait. Where there have been provisional measures issued in the ICJ case, we have both abided by those measures ourselves and called on those affected, including the Government of Israel, to abide by them. We have taken a series of steps, and we have led the international community in many of those steps. We recognise the gravity of what is happening in Gaza, in the west bank and across the region. We are trying to take steps equal to the scale of that challenge and we will continue to do so.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We have heard repeated constantly the stance that genocide is a matter for a competent court—that has been a long-standing position of the Government—but we also know that a determination has been made, or has allegedly been made, because lawyers acting for the Government in court have said so, that that matter has been considered and that there is no genocide. Does the Minister understand why the British public are perplexed by what is being said in the House vis-à-vis what has been said in court?
Mr Falconer
I understand the complexities of these questions. I recognise that the judge has not yet opined in the judicial proceedings to which the hon. Member refers. Once the judge has done so, we will all be in a position to consider his findings. I have set out the Government’s position, as I think the hon. Member said, at some length, over a series of appearances in Parliament and outside of it, and through written questions. I will try always to explain why it is that the—
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
This morning I was at a very moving service at St Paul’s cathedral to recognise the 30th anniversary of the genocide at Srebrenica. One of the VIP guests was His Excellency the Palestinian ambassador. Would the Minister have any idea why he was considered to be such an important guest at such an occasion?
Mr Falconer
I was not at the event and I cannot speak to who was invited or why, but obviously I speak to Dr Zomlot on a regular basis. He is personally affected by the crisis in Gaza and across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There is no doubt in the Government about the depth of human suffering that is being experienced each and every day—that was experienced overnight—by people desperate to access aid in Gaza. The position that I am laying out in relation to the legal tests that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire mentioned is to reassure the House that we take our obligations under the convention incredibly seriously. The long-standing position about determination is that it is for a competent court. That does not stop us taking action in response to the tragedy that is unfolding before our eyes.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Recently, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report about accountability for Daesh crimes, including genocide. A number of recommendations in that report pertain to issues applicable to other situations that have been referred to today. I want to press the Minister on the issue of universal jurisdiction. Would he and the Government consider a change in the law to allow for the prosecution of genocide regardless of a perpetrator’s nationality?
Mr Falconer
I am of course very happy to consider the recommendations of the Committee. We do have extrajudicial—I will be careful on the legalities of it, but as I understand it, British courts can look into crimes of genocide outside the UK where a UK national is involved. If the recommendation of the Committee is that that should be expanded, we can take a look at that, but that is the current position. At the risk of stating the absolute obvious, it is a criminal offence to commit genocide in the UK and it is a criminal offence to commit genocide outside the UK if you are a UK national, and our courts have competence to hear that.
I want to be clear on our position in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We strongly oppose the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza and its stated intention to hold territory indefinitely. Israel’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance is unjustifiable. Israeli settlements in the west bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law and settler violence against Palestinians is unacceptable. Extremist rhetoric inciting unlawful violence against Palestinians is abhorrent. The House has heard about steps we have taken in recent days to respond. We have equally been clear in our condemnation of Hamas for its heinous terrorist attacks on 7 October, which the hon. Member for North Herefordshire referred to, its cruel holding of hostages and its use of civilian infrastructure in conflict, which places civilians at huge risk.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire talked of the International Court of Justice, which is considering a case brought under the genocide convention by South Africa against Israel. It has issued provisional measures, including on humanitarian access. We respect the Court’s independence and its authority to issue binding orders, and expect Israel to follow them under international law. Separately, the International Criminal Court is investigating what is happening in Israel and the OPTs. We fully support that Court’s role in investigating and prosecuting serious international crimes and holding those responsible accountable, including delivering justice for victims.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Nearly a year ago, in an advisory opinion, the ICJ ruled Israel’s occupation of the Palestine territories unlawful. It clearly specified obligations on all states not to provide any economic, diplomatic, political or military support that helps to perpetuate that unlawful occupation. The UK Government’s assessment of the advisory opinion has not yet been published. Will the Minister advise us when that assessment will be published and whether he believes that the UK Government are in full compliance with the advisory opinion?
Mr Falconer
I want to clarify about the advisory opinion, which we are still considering—it was long in the making and has broad implications—that the UK agrees with the central position that the hon. Member describes, which is that settlements are illegal and should cease. That is not a novel element of the advisory opinion for the UK Government. [Interruption.] I will make some progress, if I may.
Mr Falconer
Let me make a little progress, and then I will be happy to.
Let me set out what the Government are doing. We have called on the Government of Israel repeatedly to comply fully with their international obligations. We do so in private, with Ministers, and in public, through co-ordinated public statements with partners. We have built strong international pressure on Israel to address the humanitarian situation in Gaza, including through the Security Council. We have voted repeatedly in the Security Council to that effect, demanding the lifting of restrictions on aid in Gaza in line with humanitarian law. We have also taken action to address settler violence and extremism, including the sanctions last week against Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich for inciting extremist violence, which constitutes an abuse of Palestinians’ human rights.
I give way to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire on settlements.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister. Will he address the question I have previously raised in the House? Trade in settlement goods is trade in the proceeds of crime, so will he ban it?
Mr Falconer
Ms Jardine has reminded me that I have one minute left, so I will answer the question and then conclude. Goods from illegally occupied settlements come under different trading provisions than those from green-line Israel. That is a question for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that we keep under regular review. As the hon. Member is aware, others are looking at these questions, but at the moment no European power bans settlement trade in the way that she describes. It is something that we talk to our partners and allies about.
Let me conclude rapidly in order to give the hon. Member the final word. I want to reaffirm that the Government are meeting their international obligations, including those under the genocide convention. We continue to maintain that genocide determinations are a matter for a competent—
Mr Falconer
I am about to hand over to the hon. Member. Our commitment to international law is firm. It applies everywhere without exception, and our record reflects that.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
The Question is—[Interruption.] Order. The Member in charge does not have the right to wind up a 30-minute debate.
Question put and agreed to.