Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

Debate between Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and John McDonnell

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The reason we are here is that there is a profound responsibility on us, as Members of Parliament in particular, to ensure that our Government act in accordance with international humanitarian law. There are two questions that we need to pose time and again. First, what evidence would it take to convince the Government that there is a risk of genocide? That means evidence not that there is genocide, but that there is a risk of genocide. Secondly, what process should the Government use to determine that?

On the first question, I am absolutely perplexed as to why the evidential methods that we have used in the past, when we have determined that there have been genocides, are not simply being accepted by the Government at the moment, given the loss of life—the 70,000, as has been said—and the way in which the genocide has been perpetrated. There are the attacks on health workers and doctors, with 1,700 killed that we know about, and at least 100 who have been imprisoned, tortured, denied access to medical facilities, and even to their own families.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[John McDonnell]

No, I cannot accept any interventions.

There is also the number of journalists killed—more than 300—because part of this genocide is to prevent the reporting of the genocide. And, yes, there is the forced movement of people, with 9,000 prisoners in Israeli prisons, 100 of whom have died in the past two years. That is the evidence we present time and again. It is the same kind of evidence we have used in the past to determine genocide, so why is it not acceptable now?

The second question is about the process. I will just say to the Minister that time and again we have had these debates. People have lost confidence in the process that the Government are using to arrive at their determination of whether there is a risk of genocide. I am afraid that not only have Members of this House and the wider public lost confidence in the internal processes, but that is what is forcing people out on to the streets and into forms of direct action, because they have lost confidence in the Government’s own objective assessment.

I therefore suggest this to the Minister: why not establish an independent commission? Use people such as Philippe Sands and others, and let the House determine who sits on that commission, so that they can report back to the Minister on the evidence available. I think that the Government, once they see the evidence, will have to accept that there is at least a risk of genocide, and that will have to determine their actions. Some of those have been set out today: the end of trade, the end of the arms sales, and the prevention role that we have to play in securing peace and justice for the Palestinian people—and yes, for the Israeli people—for the long term.

Mariana Dam Disaster

Debate between Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and John McDonnell

Thursday 22nd June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee, right hon. and hon. Members from across the House who have been involved, and my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for securing this emotive and hard-hitting debate. It is about how British companies conduct themselves around the world and whether they implement the highest safety standards, which we rightly expect of them. It is also about how we hold companies headquartered in London or elsewhere in the UK to account when they do not live up to the standards that they claim to uphold.

The House’s sub judice rule—as you rightly pointed out, Mrs Latham—prevents me from commenting on any ongoing court action relating to the hundreds of thousands of claimants seeking compensation for damage caused by this horrific incident. However, as the hon. Member stated, the Mariana dam disaster has been called

“the worst environmental disaster in Brazil’s history.”

The disaster severely impacted indigenous communities including the Krenak people by irreparably damaging the river source and the community’s lifeblood, the Rio Doce. It is important that we recognise the victims and their grieving families, with 19 lives lost because of the disaster. For the people of Brazil and other fair-minded, good people around the world, such disasters must not be forgotten, or we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

The people of Brazil believe that the disaster could and should have been avoided. Indeed, the 2017 report “The River is Dead” by the London Mining Network states:

“Since the beginning of the operation, in 2008, the Fundão Dam had presented several anomalies related to drainage defects, upwelling, mud and water management errors and saturation of sandy material. In some cases, emergency measures had been required.”

However, the project continued, and production was kept at high levels until the disaster.

A recent report published by the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, after some of its members visited Brazil, found:

“Nearly seven years after the dam collapse, the end of these reparations and compensation is nowhere in sight. Consequently, affected community members have suffered for over seven years, and the companies and investors continue to accrue costs associated with the delayed provision of reparations and compensation”.

Companies running large operations worldwide cannot be allowed to hide behind their subsidiaries when things go wrong or when there is an ecological and environmental disaster. The UK has an important global role. It can and should lead the way by exploring ways to introduce stronger accountability mechanisms for UK corporations operationally, both domestically and internationally, to help to protect against human rights abuses and protect our fragile environment.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise to my hon. Friend and to you, Mrs Latham. It is one of those days when there is a lot going on in the other Chamber that we take an interest in, so I will need to go, but I want to raise one point first.

I completely understand why the Chair is twitchy about sub judice issues, but the whole point of having this debate is so that maybe some good can arise from this tragedy. There is potential for our Government to lead on legislative reforms, which can then be developed internationally to ensure the accountability of companies, prevention of human rights abuses and environmental protections. It is about directors’ responsibilities as well. There is an agenda that the Government could seize to turn this tragedy into something beneficial globally.

Financial and Social Emergency Support Package

Debate between Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and John McDonnell

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dhesi]

My right hon. Friend mentioned profiteering a short while ago. There are very unscrupulous retailers and wholesalers. While some of them are acting very responsibly, the unscrupulous individuals are profiteering at the very moment that people are at their most vulnerable and are then having to contend with those hiked prices. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those individuals should bear it in mind that people have long memories, and they may very well find that after this crisis is over their

[John McDonnell]

Profiteering businesses need to recognise that reputational damage to their operations will last beyond the crisis.

The point I was making is that if we are to be serious in this war-like situation about defeating the enemy, we have to go all the way. People and businesses need absolute certainty. The Prime Minister said that all businesses should close down unless they have an essential role to play in the fight against the coronavirus, or unless the business can continue to operate with staff working from home.

Let us be clear: construction sites should be closed down, unless they are building health facilities. They should close now. They are putting lives at risk by operating still. The Scottish First Minister says they should close, and the Mayor of London says they should, but the Government are allowing them to continue.

I have spoken to construction workers and their unions in recent days. They have told me that social distancing on a building site, as anyone who has worked on one will say, is just not possible. For some roles, it would not be safe either.

Yesterday, unfortunately, the Health Secretary tried to blame the Mayor of London for reduced services on the London underground. Earlier in the day, the Mayor had explained that some 20% of staff on the London underground are either off sick or self-isolating as a precaution, and that the tube was running at the maximum capacity it could, given those constraints. Construction company Taylor Wimpey—I praise it—has taken the responsible decision to shut down all its sites, and I commend that.

The Government must back workers and their unions who refuse to work in unsafe workplaces. The Government—let us be clear—must order workplaces to close if they are not essential to the fight against the virus. Businesses and workers need the clarity that they deserve. The Government also needs to reassure those businesses that they can furlough their workers, the directly employed and others.