Genocide Convention: UK Compliance
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(2 days, 13 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK compliance with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. On 29 December 2023, South Africa brought a case before the International Court of Justice regarding the application of the convention on the prevention of and punishment of the crime of genocide in the Gaza strip. South Africa argued that Israel’s deliberate denial of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians could constitute one of the prohibited acts under the genocide convention by
“deliberating inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.
On 26 January 2024, the ICJ issued an interim response, which recognised a “plausible risk” that Israel’s acts could amount to genocide being committed against the Palestinian people. The president of the ICJ at the time subsequently stated that the purpose was to declare that the Palestinians had
“plausible rights to protection from genocide”,
which were at a real risk of irreparable damage.
The ICJ’s ruling was very clearly not intended as a determination of whether a genocide had occurred; rather, it was intended to indicate that if some of the acts that South Africa cited in its case were proven, they could fall under the United Nations convention on genocide. Those acts were military operations in and against Gaza; killing, injuring or destroying life and preventing births; displacement, deprivation and the destruction of life; incitement and encouragement to genocide; the destruction of evidence; and genocide itself. At the same time, the ICJ called for “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in the occupied Gaza strip from the risk of genocide by ensuring sufficient humanitarian assistance and enabling basic services.
Today, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is beyond imaginable. Oxfam summarises it as follows—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the House on the Crime and Policing Bill—the first of a number. We will suspend the sitting for 45 minutes.
Ellie Chowns
For clarification, since the Minister is not in his place and no one from the Government is here, is it correct that I continue?
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
The Parliamentary Private Secretary is here, and the Minister has just arrived.
Ellie Chowns
Marvellous. As I was saying before the Divisions, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is horrific beyond imagining. Oxfam summarised it as follows:
“The Israeli military has killed over 52,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including thousands of children. Entire families and neighbourhoods have been destroyed…Israel is blocking all but a trickle of life-saving aid into Gaza - people are struggling to access basics like food, water, medicine and shelter… All of Gaza is at risk of a manmade famine. Starvation is widespread, and children and families are already dying from hunger…Israel has cut electricity to Gaza’s main desalination plant that supplied clean water to around 500,000 people.”
Last month, the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs said the territory was:
“The only defined area—a country or defined territory within a country—where you have the entire population at risk of famine. One hundred per cent of the population at risk of famine…Gaza is the hungriest place on Earth.”
It seems clear that what the world is witnessing, in real time, is the continued cruel and inhumane policy of using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and collective punishment. We see this daily.
The BBC reported today that 51 Palestinians were killed today while waiting for flour at a Gaza aid site. This all happened since the ICJ’s 2024 assessment that there was a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza. If that risk existed then, it has existed every day since, and it is now absolutely undeniable. However, the UK Government’s actions and choices do not appear to recognise that risk, and it is not clear what they have done, if anything, to assess the risk of genocide before making policy decisions.
Amnesty International has done that work, however. It argues that there is evidence of a “calculated” plan to bring about the “physical destruction” of Palestinians in Gaza, and it concludes that factors that include the obstruction or denial of lifesaving goods and humanitarian aid, the killing of civilians, damage and destruction of civilian infrastructure, forcible displacement, and the restriction of power supplies taken together constitute genocide.
I do not have enough time to cover the extent to which all the tests are being met, but I do not think the Minister or any other Member can possibly be unaware that the Israeli military has targeted hospitals, refugee camps and schools, with multiple generations of families wiped out because of direct or indiscriminate attacks. They cannot be unaware of the vast damage and destruction inflicted on critical infrastructure, including essential parts of the food production system; hundreds of thousands of residential homes; water, sanitation and hygiene infrastructure; hospitals and other healthcare facilities; roads and energy infrastructure. No one can be unaware of how the Israeli authorities have issued large numbers of the civilian population in Gaza with evacuation orders that have caused repeated mass forced displacement under utterly unsafe and inhumane conditions, that Gaza has been under electricity blackout since the 11 October 2023, that power supplies have repeatedly been used as weapons of war, or that in March 2025 Israel shut off the electricity supply to a desalination plant for drinking water.
That is all occurring against a backdrop of well-documented statements from Israel’s political and military leadership that indicate a pattern of dehumanising, racist and derogatory rhetoric against Palestinians, which escalated significantly after the horrific and utterly inexcusable terror attacks of 7 October. That rhetoric from the Israeli Government includes statements calling for, or justifying, genocidal acts.
Consider, too, the other violations of international law that, as stated by Amnesty International, at the very least point to potential genocidal intent, such as incommunicado detention, torture and other ill-treatment of Palestinians from Gaza, and the widespread destruction of cultural, historical and religious sites, including after Israel had already gained military control over them and where there was no apparent military necessity. Those are just some of the factors considered by Amnesty International in reaching its conclusion that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
The UK Government have been crystal clear that it is for the international courts to determine whether or not genocide is happening in Gaza. I do not agree, but that is anyway irrelevant to the UK’s obligation under the genocide convention to act to prevent genocide. By definition, that must happen before it is established that a genocide has taken place. Indeed, the ICJ established in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro that the threshold for taking action to prevent is where there is a “serious risk” that genocide might take place. Therefore, the UK has a clear and legal obligation to act to prevent genocide, along with all other signatories of the United Nations genocide convention under article I of the convention. This should not wait for a court determination; that will be too late.
Indeed, that argument was the basis on which South Africa brought its case to the ICJ, and it makes a mockery of our obligation under international law if prevention hinges on genocide being conclusively proven in court, by which time the targeted group in question may have been wiped out. On 14 May 2025, the Minister seemed to recognise that point and asserted that this Government
“have not waited for…the determination of international courts, to take action.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 353.]
He referred to the suspension of some arms licences to Israel and the sanctioning of some individual settlers, and even two individual Israeli Ministers, as examples of action that has been taken. While that is hugely welcome, I respectfully note that these actions do not amount to doing everything possible to prevent genocide.
Indeed, the implication of the Government’s position is that, because the courts have not made a genocide determination yet, they are not required to take a level of action that would constitute meaningful prevention, such as a full arms embargo, full sanctions against military and political leaders, a complete ban on all military co-operation, the suspension of the existing trade agreement, a ban on settlement goods and so on.
The Government will not even name the genocide in Gaza, but that is not the point I want to dwell on in this debate. Rather, I want to ask the Minister to tell us what the UK Government are doing to assess the risk of genocide and to determine whether there is any potential that it might be happening in Gaza, because that should surely be informing every single decision they make in relation to Gaza.
The ICJ has been very clear that the risk of genocide is plausible. A September 2024 UN special committee warned that
“the policies and practices of Israel…are consistent with the characteristics of genocide.”
The UN special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, found that
“There are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating”
that Israel has committed genocide
“has been met.”
Even if the UK does not formally recognise the assessment made by Amnesty International, the evidence accumulated must surely point to a possibility. For a responsible signatory to the genocide convention, that possibility is everything, because without having conducted an assessment of the risk of genocide in Gaza, I fail to see how the UK can carry out its legal duty to prevent. An assessment of risk is also fundamental to any determination of whether the UK may be complicit in any genocide—for example, by continuing to provide F-35 parts via the global supply pool, which are used in attacks on civilians in Gaza.
Although I welcome the publication of a summary of the assessment process and decisions that led to the suspension on 22 September 2024 of some arms export licences, the assessment was limited in scope. It has three short sections entitled “humanitarian”, “treatment of detainees” and “conduct of hostilities”. It was concerned solely with whether UK exports might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law—IHL. There is no reference, for example, to forced displacement, the deliberate restriction of power supplies, or genocidal encouragement, incitement or intent. As such, that assessment falls far short of an assessment of the risk of genocide. Parliament has so far struggled to get a straight answer on whether such an assessment has been conducted, let alone get any assessment published, if it does exist.
On 6 May, during an oral statement on the middle east, my Green colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), explicitly asked the Minister:
“When did he last assess the real risk that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza?”
This was the Minister's response:
“We assess risk. I can confirm that those assessments are ongoing and that a prevention of humanitarian aid reaching Gaza is part of them.”—[Official Report, 6 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 588.]
On 14 May, replying to an urgent question in the House, the Minister advised that there were ongoing assessments in relation to international humanitarian law, and that these considered all the relevant tests. He specifically cited the genocide convention when making that point. The following day, I used a written question to ask for the most recent risk assessment to be published. The reply I received on 3 June referred me not to an assessment of the risk of genocide, but back to the Government statement of 2 September in relation to export licences. The statement, which is definitely not an assessment of the risk of genocide and which was made more than six months ago, begs the question: has there been no more recent assessment? Has there been any assessment of the risk of genocide?
The Government’s submission in Al-Haq v. Secretary of State for Business and Trade suggests that such an assessment does exist. It stated that the FCDO’s assessment and the Government’s conclusion is that there was no serious risk of genocide occurring. That was their assessment in 2024.
I asked about that again in an oral question to the Minister on 4 June, the day after his unilluminating written reply to me. I asked very specifically if he would publish his most recent genocide risk assessment without delay. His response indicated that there has in fact been no genocide risk assessment. He said,
“the question that we assessed in relation to international humanitarian law was whether there was a real risk of a breach of IHL. That was the assessment we made when we first entered government. That is a considerably lower bar than the questions to which the hon. Member refers. We continue to make those assessments, which cover the entirety of international humanitarian law. We have updated the House on that initial assessment, which is at a rather lower bar than she is suggesting, and the assessment broadly remains in place.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 348.]
Again, that refers back to the assessment, which is not an assessment of a risk of genocide.
In the meantime, the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) asked a written question, which elicited a response confirming that there have been regular IHL assessments since the beginning of the conflict on 7 October 2023, and that these assessments are continuous, with the latest due to be finalised before the end of the month. What still has not been confirmed is whether these include an assessment of the risk of genocide.
My purpose in securing this debate is simple. I want to know whether the UK Government have carried out any assessment of the risk of genocide in Gaza. In case I have not made myself clear, I do not consider the assessment that led to the change in export licences in September 2024 to be a test of genocide. The Minister himself appears to have already acknowledged that that one, or any other assessment that may or may not have been conducted, met a lower bar by being focused solely on the risk of breach of IHL. I very much trust that he will not cite that in his reply today. I also trust that he will not retreat to the Government’s well-worn position that it is for the international courts to make a determination of genocide. For the purposes of this debate, I accept that that is the legal position and it needs no further explanation at this time.
I think I have demonstrated that there is a wealth of evidence of the risk of genocide, and that there is widespread acceptance that that is the case. Now I simply want to understand—yes or no—whether the UK Government have conducted any assessment of the risk of genocide in Gaza. Preventing genocide goes to the heart of our obligations under international law—under the genocide convention—and it seems unconscionable that such an assessment would not have been conducted. We need to know. On that note, I look forward to the Minister’s unambiguous reply. I am sure he will understand that I will seek to intervene on him if an unambiguous yes or no is not forthcoming.
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.
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.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
I welcome the tone and spirit of my hon. Friend’s question. We do have agency in this House. The frustrations that are felt by so many, both within and without the House, are completely understandable and justifiable. This Government have sought change and have been frustrated by how slow that change has been, but we will continue to work for a better situation for those in Gaza, for those in west bank and, of course, for those in Israel.
My hon. Friend asks about maritime corridors, which are an important but, ultimately, relatively peripheral part of any aid operation if it is to be at the scale required. There were maritime corridors supported in an earlier phase of the conflict and they did important work, but ultimately the three road crossings into Jordan, Egypt and Israel are the most practical, most viable, and most tried and tested routes to get aid in at the scale and with the flexibility required to meet the needs of those in the strip.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome the announcement of sanctions on two extremist Ministers. It is long overdue and it is a bare minimum. On its own, it is likely to do little to stop extremist, illegal settlements and violence against Palestinian civilians. When will the Government implement a ban on settlement goods to stop the economy that fuels illegal settlements? Will the Minister today, clearly and unequivocally, call for illegal settlements to be dismantled, as the International Court of Justice has directed?
Mr Falconer
I will not repeat the answer about settlement goods that I gave earlier, but I want to be absolutely clear for the House that settlements are illegal under Israeli and international law and they should be dismantled.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
I just want to acknowledge for my hon. Friend that we recognise that this conflict is being measured in hours and days, not weeks and months, and it is on those timelines that we seek to take action. On the question of a coalition of the willing, we are working with our allies, as I am sure she is aware. We convened the statement of 26 on humanitarian action and the leaders’ statement of three, to which I referred earlier in my statement. We will continue to work broadly. I can confirm that even today I have been working on those questions.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The UK Government have an obligation under international law to do everything possible to prevent genocide, yet we see genocide occurring in Gaza. The Minister assured the House a month ago that he was conducting a risk assessment on genocide in Gaza. Will he give me a clear, unambiguous, straight answer today? Will he publish his most recent genocide risk assessment without delay?
Mr Falconer
As this House has heard from me before, the question that we assessed in relation to international humanitarian law was whether there a real risk of a breach of IHL. That was the assessment we made when we first entered government. That is a considerably lower bar than the questions to which the hon. Member refers. We continue to make those assessments, which cover the entirety of international humanitarian law. We have updated the House on that initial assessment, which is at a rather lower bar than she is suggesting, and the assessment broadly remains in place. We will not provide further updates, but if the position changes, I will be sure to return to the House.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Meg Hillier
I do not have time to completely unpick the hon. Lady’s points, but to have something positively suggested is a big issue for young people, so the social media aspect is important.
The social network matters. At the point of puberty, teenagers will look to their social group, which will massively influence their behaviour in a way that their families will not. Adolescents are more likely to take risks: their neurodevelopmental underpinnings are different, and pathways between the rational and the emotional parts of the brain are not fully developed. In “a hot situation”, where there is a lot of emotion, they take more risks, particularly because they do not have the ability to think about the counterfactual. In this case, the counterfactual is not being here anymore; that is a very difficult thing for a lot people to understand, particularly young people.
The ability of young people to think flexibly and change their minds is in the front of the brain, which does not always react to the—
Dame Meg Hillier
I need to make some progress. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am trying to speak at great pace.
Teenagers are passionate about their beliefs and peers can change their minds in a way that their parents often cannot. There is not always a logical decision-making path. A doctor would carry weight. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), a child may be thinking about dying but somebody—that doctor or professional—could make their decision a legitimate option.
There are many issues in palliative care. We talked about Gillick competency, but to be clear, young people under the age of 18 can make their own decisions about healthcare. Even young people under the age of 16 can have such conversations because of Gillick competency, which is a good principle, but the issues around mental capacity and Gillick competency are often not well put in place—
Anneliese Dodds
I very much appreciate my hon. Friend’s efforts, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, to ensure that these matters were covered in Committee. Sadly, because of the patterns of behaviour that we see time and again with those who have been subject to coercion, I do not believe that the safeguards go far enough. That is my assessment, and I know that other Members will come to a different view.
Anneliese Dodds
I will make some progress, because I know others wish to speak.
I want to speak briefly about subsection (1)(b) of new clause 16, which relates to mental disorder. Colleagues will dispute whether analogies are appropriate, but it is important that the House is aware—this was covered in Committee—that in the Netherlands, which of course has a different regime from the one proposed in the Bill, two cases involving psychiatric suffering were subject to assisted dying in 2010; in 2023, that figure was 138. That is a very substantial increase. I understand that, as was said earlier, it is a completely different set of circumstances in the Dutch case, but I am concerned that there is some confusion about the scope of the mental capacity provisions in the Bill.
India-Pakistan: Escalation
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for the sensitive and personal tone that he brings to his remarks. I, too, have seen the Commonwealth war graves in Pakistan and India, which are a tribute to the service of many from the British Indian forces that fought in world war two. I can assure him and his constituents that we will do everything we can to play our full diplomatic role.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Given the significance and frightening ramifications of further tensions and instability between these two nuclear-armed neighbours, I agree with the Minister that de-escalation and diplomacy are the absolute priority. Can he tell the House whether he has sought assurances that UK-manufactured weapons and military equipment have not been used in attacks against civilians? Can I ask him now to explicitly rule out supplying any UK-made weaponry to either side, in a bid to increase the pressure on all parties to engage in much-needed dialogue?
Mr Falconer
We have some of the toughest arms export rules in the world, and they will be fully adhered to in this case. I do not intend to make further announcements from the Dispatch Box about that regime now, but I am sure that in due course I can return to the House to provide a further update.
Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
In solidarity, Green party MPs share in the condemnation—which should be fully cross-party—of the Israeli Government’s shameful detention and deportation of our two Labour MP colleagues. In the context of the widespread evidence of war crimes, does the Minister agree that this demonstrates that international scrutiny of what is happening in Israel and Palestine is ever more important? Noting that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister have condemned the actions of the Israeli Government, may I ask him which of the many actions that I have previously challenged him to take, will he now take, to show that actions speak louder than words? How will he make our disapproval really clear?
Mr Falconer
Conscious of time, I will not relitigate the many points that the hon. Member has raised with me in the past. I will simply say that I stand by the remarks in the statement, and we have made our displeasure known.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise those pressing concerns, and all will be revealed when the China audit comes forward with the specifics on his question.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I am deeply concerned about the resumption of hostilities in Gaza. The Foreign Secretary and I are pressing all parties to return urgently to dialogue and to implement the ceasefire agreement in full. Since the renewed outbreak of hostilities, the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, EU High Representative Kallas and the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher. We have also been working with our French, German and Italian partners in support of the Arab plan for the reconstruction of Gaza as part of wider peace building efforts.
Ellie Chowns
It is often said that actions speak louder than words. The Government have repeatedly condemned what is happening in Gaza and the west bank, yet Israeli settler violence, Israeli settlement expansion, the unlawful demolition of Palestinian homes and violence in Gaza are continuing. Given that UK diplomatic efforts and condemnations are being so roundly ignored, will the UK now take action and ban the importation of products from illegal settlements on illegally occupied land, to give the signal that Israel cannot break international law with complete impunity?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Lady will know the importance that we have placed on international law since we came to power in July. We have been clear throughout this period that we want to see a ceasefire in Gaza. We regret that, at this point, we are still in disagreement with the Israeli Government, and we regret the scenes of the last few weeks in relation to the west bank and to Gaza. In relation to settlement goods, as the Foreign Secretary said earlier and as I have said before, different provisions exist for illegal settlements, which we consider to be illegal and which do not benefit from any of the provisions that would otherwise cover goods from Israel.
Conflict in Gaza
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I commend my hon. Friend for bringing her moral clarity to the Chamber this afternoon. Of course I can confirm that we will continue to do all we can, and we stand by the judgments that we made back in September when we assessed that there was a clear risk of a breach of humanitarian law.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza—blocking the entry of humanitarian aid, cutting electricity that is essential for drinking water, the forced displacement of civilians, and now indiscriminate bombing that is killing and maiming many, many children. Those are not just clear risks of a breach of humanitarian law; they are clear breaches, and it is just not enough to say that we do not like it. I want to ask the Secretary of State a very specific question: has he explicitly asked the Israeli Government whether any UK-made arms or arms components were used in the mass air strikes in recent days that broke the ceasefire and have caused untold suffering to civilians?
Mr Lammy
In making our assessment of a clear risk of a breach of humanitarian law, we suspended arms sales to Israel, and I stand by that decision.
Syria
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
I do agree. We have engaged closely with our partners and we have travelled extensively to the region. It is vital that the international community, both in the region and beyond, speaks with one voice to give the best possible chance for the inclusive Government that we all want to see in Syria.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I thank the Minister for his statement and share his deep concern about the violence over the weekend. He mentioned the more than 16 million Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance and the pledging conference next week. Will he explain how the UK can support a safe, secure, sustainable transition in Syria given the recently announced devastating cuts to UK aid? What is his assessment of the security implications of those cuts in Syria and more broadly?
Mr Falconer
I do not want to sound unduly cheery given the stage of economic crisis in Syria, but in many respects access to Syria for humanitarian aid has got easier since the fall of Assad, so our aid programmes are able to make a difference. We have £62 million—that is not a small number—making a real difference to saving lives. We will be able to say a little more about how much further we can go on providing aid into the future at the Brussels conference, where it will be really important that we talk with our partners, too.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Ellie Chowns Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I share the horror, outrage and deep disappointment and disillusion- ment of many hon. Members in the House, across many parties, and of people across the country at the Government’s terribly short-sighted and counterproductive decision to fund greater investment in defence through slashing the development budget.
Like many hon. Members, I know how important the development budget is because I spent practically my entire career before I came to this place working in that field. I have seen it face to face and on the ground. I know that investing in health, education and nutrition helps increase human security for the long term, and that investing in conflict resolution, peace building, democracy support, and women’s and girls’ rights builds human security globally and makes the world, and us, more secure in the long term, as well as in the short and medium terms. So it is impossible to understand why the Government have taken this incredibly counterproductive decision. The three D’s of defence, diplomacy and development are united: they work together. We cannot possibly increase one by slashing another.
It is unbelievable that this decision has been made, because it is so unnecessary. A Member on the Government Benches talked earlier about needing to “send a clear message”, but what is the message that has been sent by this decision, which follows in the slipstream of President Trump’s blocking and dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development? It is the wrong message. Members on the Government Benches—indeed, the Prime Minister himself—have talked about “tough choices”, but it is a wrong choice, because there is an alternative. We did not have to fund this investment on the backs of the poorest and most marginalised.
There are other choices available to us. We should ask those with the broadest shoulders to bear the burden of increased investment in defence and security. Our neighbours in France are doing exactly that by looking at wealth taxes. In his summing up, will the Minister explain why the Government have decided to fund investment in defence by undermining diplomacy and development in slashing the aid budget, leaving us all more insecure in the long run?